November 22, 2011

Democrat pundit tries to save GOP from terrible fate of winning

In the NYT, liberal commentator Thomas Edsall worries that Republicans aren't following the advice of their wisest and bestest leaders into defeat and irrelevance:
The White Party
By THOMAS B. EDSALL 
In the wake of the 2008 election, conservative Republican strategists like Karl Rove, Grover Norquist and William Kristol warned that their party faced even worse defeats if it continued in its anti-immigrant posturing. 
“An anti-Hispanic attitude is suicidal,” Rove wrote. The decision to “demagogue” the immigration issue was a “totally self-inflicted wound by House Republicans,” Kristol declared. Beating up on immigrants,” Grover Norquist said, “loses you votes.” 
Their advice was rejected. Republicans running for the House and the Senate defiantly calculated that they could win in 2010 with a surge of white voters, affirming the Republican role as the default party of white America. Initially, this approach appeared quixotic. A demographic tidal wave of African-American and Hispanic voters threatened to wash the Republicans out to sea. 
But many Republican candidates — incumbents and challengers — did not budge. They not only held firm in their adamant opposition to immigration reform (despite its crucial importance to many Hispanic voters),

"Crucial" according to various self-proclaimed Hispanic ethnic leaders who, while they may not be very well known to Hispanic voters, always promptly return Thomas B. Edsall's request for a quote validating whatever Thomas B. Edsall wants them to say.
but they also became even more hard-nosed. Former apostates on the issue, like Senator John McCain of Arizona, who had proudly backed immigration reform in 2004 and 2005, saw the light — in other words, read poll data on Republican voters — and moved to the right. 
To use just one particularly egregious example, Senator David Vitter — who admitted that he had “let down and disappointed” family, friends and supporters but refused to answer questions about his connections to prostitutes — used an outspoken anti-immigration ad to win re-election easily in Louisiana.

It's almost as if Rove, Norquist, and Kristol could be wrong!
The decision to carry the banner for conservative white America paid off in the midterm elections — helped enormously, of course, by a dismal economy under a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress, as well as conservative hostility to the administration’s health care program and economic stimulus legislation. 
In 2010, the Republican white strategy was boosted by the fact that minority turnout traditionally drops in non-presidential years, perhaps especially so without Obama on the ballot. But the scope of success went far beyond expectations. 
The percentage of non-Hispanic whites voting for Republican House candidates in 2010, 62 percent, set a record for off-year contests, beating even the 1994 Republican rout when Republicans got 58 percent of the white vote. In presidential elections, you have to go back to the landslide Republican victories of 1972 (Richard Nixon versus George McGovern) and 1984 (Ronald Reagan versus Walter Mondale) to get white Republican margins similar to those of 2010. McGovern and Mondale carried just one state each, Massachusetts and Minnesota respectively. 
Another way of looking at it is this: fully 88.8 percent of all ballots cast in 2010 for House Republicans were cast by whites, compared to 63.9 percent for Democrats. 

The white share of Republican votes is actually slightly lower than in the past. The Big Change is that it's the Democrats that are slowly turning into the Nonwhite Party.
The degree to which the Republican Party has become a white party is also reflected in the composition of primary voters. For example, on March 4, 2008, in Ohio — where non-Hispanic whites are 81.1 percent of the population, blacks 12.2 percent, and Hispanics 3.1 percent — the Republican primary turnout was 97 percent white. Hispanics were 2 percent and the black turnout was so low it was zero percent, statistically speaking. One percent was described as “other.” 
In the Jan. 19, 2008, South Carolina primary, 96 percent of the Republican turnout was white, 2 percent black, 1 percent Latino and 1 percent other. The population of the state is 64.1 percent white, 27.9 percent black and 5.1 percent Hispanic. 
Now, moving toward what has all the markings of a historic ideological and demographic collision on Nov. 6, 2012, Republicans are doubling down on this racially fraught strategy. 
While the subject of race and of the overwhelmingly white Republican primary electorate are never explicitly discussed by Republican candidates, the issue is subsumed in blatant anti-immigration rhetoric. As Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, learned the hard way, voicing sympathy for the plight of the undocumented is a sure way to lose ground.


58 comments:

beowulf said...

To use just one particularly egregious example, Senator David Vitter — who admitted that he had “let down and disappointed” family, friends and supporters but refused to answer questions about his connections to prostitutes — used an outspoken anti-immigration ad to win re-election easily in Louisiana.

For some reason, I find this story heart-warming.

Anonymous said...

Calling the GOP the 'White party' is like saying the Weekly Standard is a WASP publication.

Who cares about the election? Whoever wins, we lose. Even if Ron 'if we build a border wall, the Government will trap us in' Paul somehow get the nomination, which he obviously won't.

Anonymous said...

Steve, when Romney is sworn into power in January of '13, what exactly do you think is going to change?

The fact that Republican front-runner Gingrich was a 'paid historian' for Freddie Mac tells you all you need to know.

Anonymous said...

If the Republican party think that going anti-immigration works well now, wait until they discover repatriation! This will allow them to reduce the number of Democrats dramatically.

Destroying affirmative action will also help Republicans to breed future republicans.

Anonymous said...

It is political suicide, if they can't muster the votes to end unskilled immigration, and frankly I don't see how they can, given that you need 60 in the senate.

Do you really see any vote changing the status quo on immigration: several million unskilled legals every year and another million unskilled illegals? What serious alternative do you see to this?

Eric said...

As Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, learned the hard way, voicing sympathy for the plight of the undocumented is a sure way to lose ground.

He writes that like it's a bad thing.

Anonymous said...

To use just one particularly egregious example, Senator David Vitter — who admitted that he had “let down and disappointed” family, friends and supporters but refused to answer questions about his connections to prostitutes — used an outspoken anti-immigration ad to win re-election easily in Louisiana


I notice that when the NYT refers to Barney Frank in a story about some topic, they do not make references to his proven involvement with homosexual prostitution.

You don't see anything such as:

"To use just one particularly egregious example, Congressman Barney Frank — who admitted that he had “let down and disappointed” family, friends and supporters but refused to answer questions about the gay prostitution ring run out of his home — was instrumental in causing the housing bubble."

The NYT is more liberally biased than The Nation is some respects.

I wonder! said...

Interesting how the article doesn't even wonder why Dems could be losing whites. After all, I'm sure all the writers friends voted Democrat, so how's that possible?

More Anon said...

Some enterprising pundit should write a reverse story: argue that affirmative action in government and in the Democrats' delegate selection system guarantee that fewer white people have a stake in government jobs and in the success of the Democratic Party, and so will tend to be easy GOP pickups.

If the Dems were smarter about this, they could have as strong a lock on government as in the FDR days, without waiting for the supposed Mexican demographic surge.

Affirmative action can sabotage Dem success too, right?

AMac said...

A few weeks ago, C-SPAN radio hosted a call-in on immigration. The guests were a La Raza spokeslady and a guy from FAIR or Numbers USA (I can't find a link to the show). Typical talking points. Most Sailer readers would find the pro-Open borders advocate's arguments terrible, and the reasonable-restrictions guy, reasonable.

The interesting point came when they started taking calls. Republican line: hostile to Open Borders. Dem line: hostile to OB. Independent line: OB-hostile. And on and on. Not a single softball for the La Raza gal. After 15 minutes or so, she was alluding to the Racism of the C-SPAN audience.

It's so annoying when the commoners are resistant to the wisdom of their betters.

Anonymous said...

Steve,

Please read this Drudge article on Obama's "Gay lover", I mean, "body man" :

http://news.yahoo.com/amazing-ride-nears-end-first-brother-reggie-love-193812368.html

Anonymous said...

Democrat pundit tries to save GOP from terrible fate of winning

The terrible fate of winning with (ick!) white voters.

You get the impression that if liberals had their way, it would be illegal to win any election without getting at least 25% of the black vote.

Paul Mendez said...

Yes, I remember how all the liberals lay awake at night after Arizona passed SB1070, worried sick that their dear old GOP was committing political suicide by alienating latinos.

corvinus said...

The 2010 prelimiary birth rate statistics are now available from the CDC.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_02.pdf

They revised the birth rates according to the 2010 Census results. Yet again, 2010 continues a trend of the recent recession and poor economy throwing White America into a briar patch. White Americans recorded 1.80 children/woman in 2010; the rates earlier in the decade were revised UP slightly because the Census found fewer non-Hispanic whites than they expected.

The formerly high-flying Hispanic birth rate continues to tank, down about 0.5 child/woman since 2007, and is now down to 2.35. The absolute number of births to Hispanic women fell from 1,062,779 in 2007 to 946,000 in 2010; the drop in fertility is therefore real.

The rate for blacks has been tracking whites pretty consistently at about 0.2 child/woman higher since 2002. The recession seems to have hit them marginally in 2008, but quite a bit more in 2010, closely paralleling the loss in government jobs (which started later than those in the private sector, and which is continuing).

Asian rates have been revised to below whites since 1997 by about 0.1 child/woman, except for 2000 (due to the Chinese calendar, I guess; there was a similar spike in 1988). The recent economic troubles have also hurt their rate more than whites'.

For American Indians, it's down to 1.4 child/woman, although I don't believe this, since births in Indian-heavy states like the Dakotas and Montana suggest a rate of about 2.1.

jody said...

you can literally see the change, the transformation of the democrat party into the "anybody but european men" party, on cable television now.

when you watch CNN and some of the other smaller television news networks, you can go a long time these days without seeing a european man as the anchor. you may see a few here and there as an expert commentator of maybe a field reporter, but in 2011 you can go a few hours now and only see the talking heads turn over from one "vibrant" personality to another.

i don't have a television, so i only see this when i'm at somebody's house, or in a hotel or bar. getting brief glimpses of it, over long intervals, provides a stark relief, in contrast to watching it steadily and not noticing the creeping change.

in fact i talk to international americans who say the same thing about the coming back to the US every year or so and noticing how the police state has creeped forward a little more, at the airport, in the city, in washington DC.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

My personal preference, speaking as a bigoted white conservative American who has two foreign adoptees, is for immigration spread out from many countries, increasing their chance of adapting to our culture and influencing it naturally, rather than immigration from one country intent on enforcing its culture on places they can.

More Filipinos, Croatians, Chinese, Koreans, Estonians - and how about English fluency being worth a few points in moving one up in line?

eh said...

As a topic, the 'Republican Party is too white' is more than a little stale, isn't it?

Per his Wikipedia page, he's nominally a 'journalist', yet he writes scare books about The New Conservative Coalition and the Drive for Permanent Power.

Anyway, what would the Stupid Party do with power if they had it? The real danger of complete demographic transformation -- which is well underway -- comes from non-white legal immigration. And I've never heard a Republican promise to do something about that. Not amnestying, and doing something to stop the influx of, illegals is about the minimum you'd expect. The problem is, you wouldn't get much more. And that won't be enough.

Aaron Baugher said...

I like the way he says Republican candidates "read poll data on Republican voters" as if that's a bad thing. How dare they try to appeal to the people most likely to vote for them!

California kid said...

It doesn't really matter if you are pro or anti-Hispanic, because they out-breed Whites by at least 5:1. If you let them in your country you will very soon have no country. You will be disenfranchised politically, culturally, and economically.

Outside of your family or town, the most important thing you have is your country. It's a place where your tribe can live and be safe. It's a place where all enemies are outside the borders.

Most of us were born into this situation where we are in a non-country. For the future years in this century, I see Whites retreating into the colder states of the USA, and becoming more militant about nullifying Federal laws and regulations that are seen as hurting the people in those states.

Anonymous said...

Whites in Mississippi vote overwhelmingly Republican, largely because the black population is large enough to be a rival for political power.

Whiskey said...

You have to ask, why the hell is that anti-White attitude so successful.

It is successful because a substantial portion of the White population finds it comfortable. VDARE has Peter Bradley noting:

Peter Brimelow, who came off his Alien Nation book tour to attend this dinner, tells me that Gingrich explicitly eschewed the idea of ending quotas, arguing it would upset “soccer moms”—and J.C. Watts. Gingrich insisted the quota issue was not helpful to his plan to build a “modern” party.
------------
Newt was right, the man knew how to read polling data. Like him or hate him (I hate him) Newt as a professional pol knows how the swing vote goes.

Steve is right, there is no way the GOP will do anything but annihilate itself by embracing the Anti-White party. BUT ... significant portions of the White electorate simply won't embrace White identity politics in any way. You might wonder why the GOP did not get 90% of the White vote?

Because a significant portion of Whites simply love the Colors of Benetton. They want it. Look at polling for the DREAM Act here in CA, Whites don't oppose it to the degree that Hispanics support it. Anti-White stuff sells. And it sells strongest, hardest, most deeply, among women. It wasn't White guys who made Oprah her billions.

Jeff W. said...

One big change for Obama is with Catholics. He got 53% of the Catholic vote in 2008. Those Catholics wanted some cash from Obama's stash just like other minorities.

But Catholics have now figured out that they are the Democrats' tax targets, just like all the other whites. Obama is polling very badly in Michigan's bellwether, heavily-Catholic Macomb County.

"In Macomb, where Obama received 53% of the vote in 2008, the president trails Romney, 68%-20%. Even controlling for a high margin of error because of a small sample size in the county, Obama trails Romney in Macomb by at least 20 percentage points."

http://tinyurl.com/cpw89km

Steve Sailer said...

Corvinus, thanks for the fertility data.

Steve

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

The real question is when are Republican pols going to go from saying things most whites want to hear to doing them?

Republican politicians hint, suggest, imply that when they're in charge our borders will be secured and affirmative action will be ended, but they haven't actually done much lately to back up those promises with action. Mitt Romney, for example, has cunningly exploited Rick Perry's missteps on illegal immigration, but search through Romney's 100+ page position paper on "jobs and growth" and you will find only one mention of the subject - a businessman complaining about all the regulatory paperwork he has to file dealing with, among other things, illegal immigration. That's it. No pledge to boost immigration enforcement on Romney's campaign site. None. Nowhere. Not in the issues section, not in the blog. He studiously avoids it.

In addition, Romney's "Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth" includes multiple paeans to legal immigration and pressing for increases in the number of visas for skilled workers.

Rethuglicans will win next year. They will do so in part by hinting they will secure the border. Assuming power, they won't do jack shit to follow through on such promises, which is a shame because that's the only way to fix the long-term economic and human capital decline we are in. So 2-4-6 years after winning they will swiftly get tossed back out, without having done a thing for whites.

Anonymous said...

Sailer: the only man who knows the truth and knows how to win. All those Republican strategist and operatives, they're idiots!!!!

Kevin B said...

IMHO it's less important to push the idea of the GOP as the "White party," than it is to brand the Democrats as the "party of color."

The "of color" appellation irritates almost any halfway sane Caucasian, so fixing the euphemism's usage in common, contemporary political jargon would go far in polarizing the two parties. Which is exactly what is needed.

Whiskey said...

I'd argue with STeve and say the key is not Reagan Democrats in Unions, but rather professional White women, who are quite likely (unable to find breakouts however this quickly) to larger, more diligent (higher turnout) and higher income (more donations).

This means both a better "deal" with preferences, spending, and money (how about free child-care to all MARRIED couples since Whites are far more likely still to be married, along with the feds kicking in say a dollar per illegal deported?) Just spitballing there.

But also emotional ties to this group. White women are marrying far later, if at all, and go through life unconnected to family and husbands and kids that used to give them meaning. Hence they glom onto what Steve calls "Nice White Lady" syndrome, and do a lot of Nice White Ladyism, which not only pays but fills emotional needs.

This emotional need is critical, and Nice White ladies are convinced that White Identity is akin to mouth-drooling Klansmen. Or evil Nazis. That has to be addressed not by counter-arguments but by GAME -- an emotion that trumps the other. The OWS are all about emotion, that's the left's playbook (get White professional women, basically). It has worked since suffrage, and is the reason for periodic leftist moral panics in the media as parodied on South Park.

Something needs to be there. [Newt just pumped for Amnesty -- in a deep recession. Why? Because he argues its "nice." The counter IMHO is Alpha it up -- not arguments. The Republicans should hire Roissy and Roosh. And yes I'm serious.]

Anonymous said...

Sailer: the only man who knows the truth and knows how to win. All those Republican strategist and operatives, they're idiots!!!!

It isn't just about winning, it's about governing. And in order to stay in power you need to lead the country well. Republicans will win next year no matter how few or many promises they make regarding border enforcement or ending affirmative action. But to stay in power they need to do those thingsa because otherwise conditions won't improve and their base will lose faith, just as they did in 2006 and 2008.

It's not just about what Republicans did to win in 2010. It's about what they did to lose in '06 and '08. Among other things, they angered their base with the 2006 and 2007 pushes for amnesty.

Harry Baldwin said...

As Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, learned the hard way, voicing sympathy for the plight of the undocumented is a sure way to lose ground.

If all Perry did was voice sympathy for the plight of the undocumented, he wouldn't have a problem. The problem is that he gave them benefits to which most Americans feel they are not entitled. This is a trick liberals use constantly, distorting the actual nature of the issue they're discussing.

Harry Baldwin said...

Anonymous said... Please read this Drudge article on Obama's "Gay lover", I mean, "body man"

I don't know about that--maybe Obama just needs him around to teach him how to act black, for those times when it's called for.

It does seem weird that a guy with a job like this would leave it to go to college. What job does he anticipate getting after college that would be better than this? That makes me wonder if there's something else going on.

Anonymous said...

Yes, what constructive, disinterested advice for the GOP, how could they not follow it? How dare the GOP risk the ire of the MSM by running to their strengths. Ron Paul is really the only GOP candidate who wants to cut off the oxygen to illegal immigration, so stop denigrating him, Mr. Anonymous. He also wants to stop invading the world, can Gregory Cochran advise him on the stupidity of the other GOP candidates and their irrational fear of Iranian nukes?

Anonymous said...

"It does seem weird that a guy with a job like this would leave it to go to college. What job does he anticipate getting after college that would be better than this? That makes me wonder if there's something else going on."

College? He is getting his MBA from Wharton.

He is just cashing in. Big.

Anonymous said...

Calling the GOP the 'White party' is like saying the Weekly Standard is a WASP publication.

Huh?!?

The Weekly Standard is a, ah, um, uh, how do you say it?, "Neocon" publication.

Anonymous said...

"For the future years in this century, I see Whites retreating into the colder states of the USA, and becoming more militant about nullifying Federal laws and regulations that are seen as hurting the people in those states."

Yes. Boise real estate is a buy. If I were a young working class white guy in Los Angeles, I would move to Boise and never look back.

Anonymous said...

The only trouble with this analysis is that the Republican Party is not the 'white' party, never was the 'white' party and never will be the 'white' party.
Let's face it, it's the party of big business, the 1%, Wall Strret and the swivel eyed globalist maniacs of the WSJ.Low tax, high profits and f*ck you loser - they own the party it's their private property.Certain white dupes and duffers like religious maniacs ad useful tools of blue collar idiocy think it's got something for them - well I've got news for you, it hasn't.They would laughing mockinhly and contemptibly whilst sipping crystal champagne, taking the labridoodle for a $1000 pedicure at the baseball capped right-wing a$$-hole blue collar loser sleeing in his car and picking up dog-ends.
All of you who cling to the vain hope that the plutocrats party give a sh*t for 'whites' or are the saviors of 'whites', just forget it.Stop it. You're being silly (as Monty Python would say).
Of course it was Nixon who instituted government legislated racial discrimination against whites (affirmative action to you).It was that dumb low IQ klutz Reagan who instituted the 1986 amnesty - *the* coup-de-grace of white America and the death knell of California.It was the globalist, right wing WSJ 'Economist' crowd that held sway over Bush that pushed and pushed and pushed for amnesy after amnesty.It was they who opened the floodgates H1b visas for untold millions of subcons.It was they who tried there damndest to bring in open borders - trying to change policy and public opinion.
I'm not a fan of the Democrats either, but why is there, amongst the 99%, the tiniest smidgen of sympathy for these horrible b*stards?

Reg C├Žsar said...

Do you really see any vote changing the status quo on immigration: several million unskilled legals every year and another million unskilled illegals? What serious alternative do you see to this?

State-mandated minimum wages for non-citizens. Like $20 or $30 per hour. Never mind the legislatures-- in many states, this can be enacted by initiative-and-referendum.

And no guff about "unconstitutionality", please. States already set minimum wages above the federal rate, and they already distinguish between citizens and non-citizens in other areas. Just combine the two.

Anonymous said...

When ethnic cleansing happens to white people it is "a tide" which "washes out to sea"

Anonymous said...

Let's face it, it's the party of big business, the 1%, Wall Strret and the swivel eyed globalist maniacs of the WSJ. Low tax...

The party of the 1% is closer to the common man than the party of the 0.01%-- George Soros, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Oprah Winfrey, 3 of every 4 hedge-fund owners... all Democrats.

You probably hate Calvin Coolidge. But he signed the immigration restrictions into law. Of whom else can you say that?

You got a problem with low taxes? This country was a lot freer before the income tax than after. No tax, no Irax.

icr said...

Environmentalist Republicans (I'm sure there are some in the Midwest) should push for am immigration moratorium. I'm sure there are plenty of rank-and-file GOP'ers who are pro-conservation, anti-congestion and want to preserve lands for hunting and other forms of outdoor recreation.

Of course an IM wouldn't pass, but making a case for it would push the Overton Window. The problem for this proposal would be the hysterical reaction of the usual GOP funding sources. This plurality voting system is the s**ts-it prevents the US from getting awesome electoral formations like the True Finns.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

"The only trouble with this analysis is that the Republican Party is not the 'white' party, never was the 'white' party and never will be the 'white' party.
Let's face it, it's the party of big business..."


Indeed.

I wonder if it would ever be OK for me or anyone else to go to a candidate meeting and ask a candidate what he's going to do for whites. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and lesbian transgendered Native American hermaphrodites are all allowed to ask what a candidate's going to do "for them" as a group. Look at any Democratic presidential campaign and see how they have pages targetting each group. It's a given, taken for granted. See this campaign ad, for example. (See the 2nd top comment for a brilliant rebuttal: "Hey asshole both California senators are Jewish. How marginal is that?")

And I refer you again to Mitt Romney's site, specifically to his plan for "jobs and growth." It is pure red meat for Wall Street. Nothing in there for "whites."

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:54, to say nothing about Bawney Fwank being present at the arrest of his boyfriend in Oqunquit, Maine (the new Provincetown) for marijuana possession and cultivation. His defense: he didn't know what pot plants look like!

AtoZ said...

In the chapter "Why Nations Decline" from his ironically titled book "No apology" Romney seems to argue for open borders and unrestricted free trade.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PDpBpo5CVB4C&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=why+nations+decline+romney&source=bl&ots=wGr4JU5vaa&sig=xJc7HuRgI--gu_N0Qx78mr4xPQM&hl=en&ei=vBPNTtSDL4KH2AWFyqTQDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Anonymous said...

"This country was a lot freer before the income tax than after."

This country was a lot freer when there were high tariffs on imports.

Svigor said...

Steve, when Romney is sworn into power in January of '13, what exactly do you think is going to change?

Hey Steve, you've probably read this already, but in case you haven't, Romney's old man has ties to FLDS, IIRC. Some of his kin (or maybe the folks they run with?) are FLDS down in Mexico, apparently. Same crew that some cartel kidnapped for money, apparently. On a side note, it's somewhat funny to me, how the cartels make attempts at PR. See, this FLDS guy apparently started running his mouth about crime (contrary to established FLDS behavior, which was to STFU and keep their heads down). Not long after, crooks kidnapped his brother and demanded 1m ransom. He refused, and kept making noise, and the Mormons got a posse together and started patrolling the streets. He accused a particular cartel of the crime, got the local DA or whatever involved in the denunciations. Apparently, this hurt the cartel in question's feelings, so they put it up on an over pass, "weren't us, ask the other cartel in town." That just hits my funnybone. So anyway, the cartel turned the brother loose and sent a hit squad dressed up as po-po to kill bigmouth, and they shot him in the head. I kinda respect that; why kill the poor brother? He was just a means to an end, and when it proved ineffective, they turned him loose.

Svigor said...

I notice that when the NYT refers to Barney Frank in a story about some topic, they do not make references to his proven involvement with homosexual prostitution.

Journalists are shitbirds (present company excluded of course, Steve). It's "former KKKer David Duke" but not "former KKKer Robert Byrd," and "whoremonger David Vitter," but not "sodomite whoremonger Barney Frank."

When they're done with the introductions, they move on to quoting the SPLC with a straight face.

This is SOP.

Anonymous said...

On the question of open borders, all the Republican candidates are bad. What separates them are are the different degrees of badness.


Gingrich and Perry seem to have an almost Bushian dedication to the open-borders idea. Other candidates such as Paul and Rommey are poor on the topic but do not give the impression that they go to sleep at night dreaming of millions of people pouring across a non-existent border.

The border question will be settled in Congress, not the WH.

Anonymous said...

Of course an IM wouldn't pass, but making a case for it would push the Overton Window. The problem for this proposal would be the hysterical reaction of the usual GOP funding sources.


Yeah, the "usual GOP funding sources" are left-wing on just about every issue you can think of. Except low-taxes for rich people - that one they like. But they're pro immigration, pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, pro affirmative action, pro the whole left-wing cultural world-view.

Svigor said...

Everyone watch out for the day Whiskey makes an argument that isn't supported solely by anecdote. The sun will go nova.

Anonymous said...

At what point do we accept that the Republicans are pro-immigration, always have been pro-immigration, and always will be pro-immigration? And does anyone seriously think this is all due to a strategic miscalculation? Was Reagan pandering to the then miniscule Hispanic vote when he passed amnesty for illegals in 1986?

The elites who fund and control both parties know that they can get away with offering up nothing but pro-immigration candidates, and the public won't do squat about it because they're basically a bunch of pussies. Conservatives will just delude themselves that Ron Paul is secretly on their side, or else they will get their kicks vicariously by supporting Israel instead of their own country. What else are they gonna do? Frankly, it's hilarious if you can just look at it from a detached perspective.

Anonymous said...

"Calling the GOP the 'White party' is like saying the Weekly Standard is a WASP publication."

Huh?!?

The Weekly Standard is a, ah, um, uh, how do you say it?, "Neocon" publication.


Tell me, are you familiar with the concept of irony?

Anonymous said...

jody - when you watch CNN and some of the other smaller television news networks, you can go a long time these days without seeing a european man as the anchor

When we had the riots here in England early in the year, the MSM were very quick to tell us that race played no part at all. But at the same time they suddenly felt the need to flood our screens with assorted non-white pundits, academics, social workers, lawyers, police etc etc to tell us all about the riot phenomenon.

Anonymous said...

"At what point do we accept that the Republicans are pro-immigration, always have been pro-immigration, and always will be pro-immigration? And does anyone seriously think this is all due to a strategic miscalculation? Was Reagan pandering to the then miniscule Hispanic vote when he passed amnesty for illegals in 1986?"

Reagan was had by the very first amnesty for enforcement deal( and of course Gingrich whole heartedly supported the next 6), but regretted it. Eisenhower actually enforced our laws, and the Republicans further back in the 20s actually got mass immigration ended to the economic benefit of all. More to the point the state and local GOP are doing what they can, and the federal government only has so much it can do to stop them.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

""Calling the GOP the 'White party' is like saying the Weekly Standard is a WASP publication.""

Huh?!?

The Weekly Standard is a, ah, um, uh, how do you say it?, "Neocon" publication."

Yes, the other anonymous poster knows that - that was the whole point of his post: That the GOP is not really a white party (in the sense of serving white interests), just as the Weekly Standard is not a WASP publication (in the sense of serving WASP interests).

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

You probably hate Calvin Coolidge. But he signed the immigration restrictions into law. Of whom else can you say that?"

You are partially right about the Democrats being even more elitist, in their own way, than are the Republicans. But the poster to whom you replied was also right. The Republican party is not now a conservative party, nor has it been for most of it's existence. It came closest to being a conservative party during the period of about 1910 - 1950 (Taft to Taft) - and not uncoincidentally that's exactly the period when Calvin Coolidge signed the immigration restriction law into effect. What the Republican party is primarily, now and in the past, is the party of big business interests.

Mr. Anon said...

"Svigor said...

I notice that when the NYT refers to Barney Frank in a story about some topic, they do not make references to his proven involvement with homosexual prostitution.

Journalists are shitbirds (present company excluded of course, Steve). It's "former KKKer David Duke" but not "former KKKer Robert Byrd," and "whoremonger David Vitter," but not "sodomite whoremonger Barney Frank."

When they're done with the introductions, they move on to quoting the SPLC with a straight face.

This is SOP."

Quite so. Highlighting the prominent position in the Democratic party held by the loathesome Barney Frank - a man who looks like Baron Harkonnen from Dune, sounds like Daffy Duck, and acts like Boss Tweed - ought to be a permanent fixture of Republican campaigns.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

"Was Reagan pandering to the then miniscule Hispanic vote when he passed amnesty for illegals in 1986?"

An excellent reply to the notion that hispandering to Hispanics on immigration is the ket to electroal success is to remind people that the president who signed the 1986 amnesty was Republican, and that one-half of the amnesty bill was named for a Republican senator, Alan Simpson of Wyoming. Newt Gingrich voted for Simpson-Mazzoli, as did John McCain.

And yet Hispanics don't seem to be be all the grateful...

Oh, and Republicans had their asses handed to them in the following election, losing control of the Senate within months of the amnesty's passage.

Gee, Republicans lose after pushing an amnesty in 1986, lose after pushing another one in 2006, and lose after pushing yet another one in 2007. They still seldom manage to get more than 40% of the Hispanic vote, and haven't elected a real conservative

Being pro-amnesty sounds like a surefire path to electoral success to me!

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

For the record, here's the vote for the 1986 amnesty played out in the House and Senate.

I correct myself from above - John McCain, who was in the House at the time, did not vote for the amnesty. Dick Cheney, however, did, as did now Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell, who also voted for the amnesty in 2006.

Anonymous said...

Weekly Standard is a WASP publication? More like Scotch-Irish.