June 28, 2007

It doesn't take a genius

I've been explaining for over a half dozen years that the Bush-Rove immigration offensive was politically nuts for the Republican Party. Of course, I'm not a genius like Karl Rove, but, I do feel in the mood today, June 28, 2007 to get something off my chest:

I told you so.

Thank you. I feel a lot better now.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer


Anonymous said...

21 of 30 Hispanic members of Congress are Democrats, as are 92% of all Hispanic elected officials nationwide (smaller, more ethnically monolithic Hispanic district vote almost exclusively for Democrats). How could anyone but an idiot and a traitor look at those facts and see anything but defeat - if not for the Republican Party, then at least for a conservative Republican Party?

George Bush maxed out the Hispanic vote at about 40%. Question: if the most conservative candidates can get is 40%, and the voting population is evenly distributed around the country, how many elections would conservatives win - 40%? Nope - 0%. Simple math.

Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Karl Rove, Bob Bennett, George W Bush: thank you for destroying the Republican Party that Ronald Reagan and so many others have worked so hard to build.

Anonymous said...

Just to be clear, immigration will destroy the party in the longer term.

The Iraq war will destroy the party in the upcoming election.

Anonymous said...

No Daveg, the Iraq War will NOT destroy the Republican Party.

Because events are not some static play where only the playwright effects things (the model for DC insiders).

Musharaff could be overthrown and an AQ-Taliban leader control Pakistan's nuke with no notice. Iran could set off a nuke and make demands of the US. Among them Sharia Law and our submission to Iran. Another massive terror strike at tempting targets (football stadiums, etc) killing far more than 9/11. We could even see a nuke destroy a US city.

Meanwhile this could come AFTER Dems and GWB agree to a surrender/retreat/withdrawal in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maxine Waters and the CBC want us to surrender in Afghanistan, saying we can't win and are defeated.

Do you honestly think the American people want defeat at the hands of bin Laden and Iran?

Meanwhile the Dems are offering defeat, appeasement, surrender, groveling, and cutting the military in the face of aggression. Iran is killing our guys in Iraq and Afghanistan every day. They along with Bush offer "dialog" which amounts basically to surrender.

The defeat on Amnesty means that the DeMint/Sessions wing of the Republican Party is stronger, and that a candidate who embraces Jacksonian Populism (i.e. Nuke Em All and Go Home) can certainly win. Rudy, Fred, and Romney all have elements of that already and can embrace it or capture it if they are clever enough.

Events are going to decide what happens. It's a folly to think that only inside DC politics has any meaning. Bush has offered PC-style fighting of Muslim enemies at some times. Dems basically surrender and appeasement. Neither are likely to be enticing to voters.

The difference between 2008 and 1992 is that a Perot like figure is likely to be a pro without lots of missteps and weird stuff: Fred, Rudy, and Mitt are proven pro politicos. Capture populism and offer aggressive deterrence to Muslim enemies and aggressive nationalism and sovereignty at home and it's a winner.

Meanwhile seriously Dem thinkers like Ted Sorenson are saying US Presidents should go to the UN and grovel, surrender our sovereignty to it. Apologize for being American.

Does that honestly sound like a winner to you? Thank god the Sessions/DeMint guys won. Now Bush can openly govern with the Dems and the Reps can run against him from the populist side.