From NBC Latino:
Jeb Bush believes Texas will be “blue” by 2016
by Patricia Diez
A lot can change in just four years.
For former Florida Governor Jeb Bush a four-year timetable is enough for a significant shift for the Republican party. He tells Joe Hagan of New York magazine: “It’s a math question. Four years from now, Texas is going to be a so-called blue state. Imagine Texas as a blue state, how hard it would be to carry the presidency or gain control of the Senate.”
Hagan starts the article for New York magazine with this idea that Texas’ rapidly changing demographic will unfavorably affect the Republican party. He writes:
“Sitting down across from me, [Jeb] assumes his role as party Cassandra, warning of the day when the Republicans’ failure to tap an exploding Hispanic population will cripple its chances at reclaiming power—starting in Texas, the family seat of the House of Bush.”
If this is a problem for the Republican party, Hagan believes Bush is just the solution: “a popular two-time governor of a Hispanic-heavy state, with a record of improving education for minorities, fluent in Spanish, married to a Latina, and father to two Hispanic sons, George P. Bush and Jeb Jr. By Jeb Bush’s own calculus, Jeb Bush would make a great presidential candidate.”
I pointed out in January 2004 that the Bush immigration policy made no sense from a Republican standpoint, but a lot of sense from a Bush Dynasty standpoint.
Posts
83 comments:
If they're right that Jeb Bush is the answer to the Republicans' "Hispanic problem," it should be easy to prove that by showing how he's won a majority of (non-Cuban) Hispanic votes in his previous elections, right?
Have such numbers been trumpeted in support of this theory? Has the need for any such proof even been considered, or does everyone just assume that a guy who spends a lot on "minority education" and speaks Spanish fluently *must* win the Hispanic vote?
Keep the pressure on, Steve. America may not survive another onslaught from the Bush-leaguers.
cipher
and father to two Hispanic sons
Those kids are more than 50% while.
What is with that Hispanic shit.
A similar headline:
Vidkun Quisling predicts that Norway will be mostly german-speaking by 1944.
Hispanics will never vote conservative because the ones we get coming here aren't conservative. The conservative Ibizans (think Borges) all stay in their respective countries. They have no reason to migrate north. So we get the ones looking for a handout.
Uh, lemme see, Romney leads Obama by 17 in Texas this year, but in 4 years it'll be a blue state like Washington or Rhode Island, really?
But we can't just blame the Bushies. This process has been going on in all the SW states. McCain and Arizona. New Mexico fell already. California did too, and let's remember it was Reagan who signed amnesty into law in the 1980s, thereby setting the template for pro-Mexican GOP in the yrs to come.
Though I despise the Bushies, I'd say they did more to adapt to than create the realities. After all, is Texas worse off than other SW states in regard to Mexican immigration?
Very typical for politicians to confuse their own advantage with their party's, and their party's with the nation's. I wouldn't attribute it to slyness or manipulation, however. It is just the natural egocentricity of all of us, magnified in the political class.
This is why every four years we are told this is the most important election of our lifetimes - because for the candidates themselves, it usually is.
Gracias, señor Bush, para ayudar a reemplazar nuestra población.
¡Estamos condenados!
¡O, Pancho!
¡O, Cisco!
¡Ja, ja, ja, ja, ja!
Sounds like a movie that might be called 'Bring me the head of Anglo Garcia'.
Jeb can try as hard as he wants, but he ain't getting near the Oval Office nohow noway. I don't care if the Baby Jesus himself endorses him, America's had enough of the f***ing Bush family.
They used to call people who soldout the interests of their country and people, traitors. What do we call them now?
You have to think a lot of GOPers now know they were wrong on immigration and should have adopted Pat Buchanan's position, though most of the little cowards would never admit to it in public.
It's too bad we could not get others to think about immigration and its potential ill effects in the same manner others use about their issues, namely that we have to follow their counsel because even if they are wrong, we're better off safe than sorry.
For example, Global warming types will argue that even if they are wrong, we should still adopt Al Gore's strategies just in case.
Neocons argued that even if Saddam did not have WMDs, we could not afford to take the chance of being wrong. After all, we didn' want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. And they continue to use this same rationale against Iran and every other villain of the month.
Yet with massive third world immigration, no one in power, espeically in the GOP, would listen and conclude that even if Buchanan was overstating the threat, we couldn't afford to take the chance that he was right. Now the GOP, and America, will be sorry and no longer safe.
I wish it would , it certainly would wake people up there in Texas but probably happen in 2030. Lamar Smith and a few others are good but Texans are more interested in tax cuts and cutting welfare without cutting illegal Mexicans. That's why even though I'm voting for Romney I hate Republicans almost as much as democratic s. I think the Mexican government is behind why both parties act like Jeb Bush.
Thank my blue heaven it's not like that with Romney!
Meanwhile Obama is busy encouraging the importation of millions of Kenyans to build his mighty dynasty.
I've looked through the numbers. Texas Hispanics vote at very, very low rates. Hispanics vote at a low average nationally, but in Texas it's even more pronounced.
Texas will be red until 2020 at the very least and then shift to slightly purple. It could get blue by 2030, but by then America has since long become California at large. Endless deficits, endless recessions etc with a small class of educated elites who live in designated cities and/or areas in those cities where life has never been better while the majority of Americans are a vast, brown permanent underclass that only keeps growing and have to keep contending with more and more poor immigrants at the bottom.
The reason why Jeb is scaremongering is very simple: he isn't right but he wants the 2016 position. He thinks Romney will lose, as do I, and wants to use Texas as a model to scare everyone(if we lose Texas...) in the GOP.
He will probably succeed. No offence but the Sailer strategy could never work today. It's last hurrah was sometime in the 90s. We're over two decades away from that point now.
On the other hand, neither will Bush's immigration treason work. Again: California is the model for the nation of what we will expect. Although I expect the Republican opposition in Congress to be more effective on fiscal issues, since you have deep-red states in the South and increasingly even in the North which will put a check on free-spending minorities in Congress.
By way, it will be slightly amusing to see what the "the polls are all a conspiracy, sampling, sampling!!!" pundits in the GOP blogosphere will do come Wednesday.
Obama will win. And then what? Well, white unemployment is 7% in the nation. Black unemployment is over 14%.
Whites have on average 22 times more in wealth than blacks do, a record high.
I could go on. Whites are starting to recover now, in significant manner, blacks are left behind. But they will vote for him 99-1 anyway.
Ugh.
Bush has another think coming if he thinks he can beat Rubio down the road.
Part 2...
Obama has pledged to "help communities of color" in his second term. He called them "the future of our workforce".
And, well, he's right. If you discount Semites(whether the 'Scotch-Irish' or the Arabs), the white population share at age 18, college age, is below 50% already.
But what can Obama do? He won't get much done in Congress in these Tea Party times. Sure, he'll argue - with plenty of help from moneyed GOP elites like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio(a bush princeling) and folks like McCain that "we need to do immigration reform and now hispanics will love us and vote for us in droves" and when that doesn't work out, they'll blame the "negative rhetoric" etc etc. Whenever minorities don't vote for the GOP it's always the GOP's fault or the candidates' fault. Just like it is now Romney's fault that black people are incredibly "color conscious" if we put it mildly and can't vote for someone as melantin-challenged as him.
But despite the oncoming amnesty(and Romney has already said he won't touch Obama's 2 million amnesty for those under 30 if he is sworn into office, plus he has indicated to go with the Rubio version of amnesty too), I don't see the House GOP helping Obama on much else.
What exactly will they do? Massively increase taxes on the white suburbs, their base, towards the inner cities?
I don't doubt that some of them are willing to do that, but they know they'll get creamed just two years later in the Congressional elections. And as we saw a 2010 backlash we'll see a 2014 backlash again. This ain't the 1990s when you could get away with this stuff.
This time the base doesn't trust it's pols. They keep an eye for them.
So what will Obama do? He can't start with the biggest majorities in Congress for the last 40 years as he did last time. He will have to go through the GOP house every time, and with the prospect of that house getting even stronger(and more radical) in 2014. Whites vote much more than minorities in off-election year congressional elections.
That's why I think we've entered a period of GOP dominance of Congress, since the House is where it's at. The Dems held that advantage for generations in the 'Great Society' era.
Now, it's White America's turn.
And Obama will be hamstrung. He can't do much with execute orders. He did the amnesty by failing to police existing laws.
But for his initiatives on "communities of color" he needs new laws on the books. He needs stimulus, to put it plainly. And that ain't going to happen. Congress hasn't passed a budget in 4 years because they know it can't pass.
By the way, look at this chart on the enthusiasm of young people in America for socialism:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-01/americans-aged-18-29-have-more-favorable-response-socialism-capitalism
Just 14% of those over 65 embrace the term, while more people aged 18-19 prefer socialism over capitalism. I would wager if we broke out the demographics we'd see a landslide in favour of socialism among minorities.
The coming economic clash between the young brown population and the old white, pro-free market, socially conservative(basically what America has always stood for) is going to accelerate. As the loud demands for "white, rich America to pay their fair share".
Obama won't be the transformational president. He'll be presiding on an ever-more divided nation.
Hi Steve, sorry if my english isn't excellent, I am not from the USA.
I have a question
In the USA you have two parties: Republicans who have conservative social values with free trade small state ideas, and the Democrats, who are socially liberal and support big welfare State.
I think the republicans could defeat the democrats if they keep their conservative ideas on gay marriage and abortion, but become more pro welfare State, something like the European Christian Democratic parties (the one of Merkel)
Most blacks and latinos are conservative, as in, they oppose gay marriage for example. They vote for the dems because the wallet is the most sensitive organ of humans, but if they had the chance of voting for a party that offered both social conservatism + welfare for the poor, they would prefer it over the dems.
Walter
Bush's projection is probably a bit too soon. However, it eventually will happen sometime around 2024.
See the article below:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/30/1114634/-Projecting-Texas-The-Coming-Democratic-Plurality
Sex will turn any white male into a cheerleader for non-white people. Just look at all the white males who cheerlead for East Asians. It's one of the reasons why East Asians are viewed favorably while blacks are not because white males don't want to have sex with black women.
Latinos will vote for Republicans if they promise open borders. Latinos bring their culture with them like any other people. And with more Latinos in this country the poorer, dumber and more corrupt it gets.
Yup.
It's rather like a man who habitually feeds foxes outside his home - and then whines when his yard is peppered with fox poop.
There is going to be very interesting developments in the next decade...
failure to tap an exploding Hispanic population
What exactly is there to tap? Besides votes, which is apparently the only metric some writers care about.
All high-density voting districts in the United States (ie districts in or incorporating cities) are left of centre (ie Democratic), except for one: The one centred on "Little Havana".
If the Republicans are just going to compete with Democrats on the basis of being Democrat-light (ie follow the Bushies) they will lose even that.
The Republicans (with Tea Party spine) are in the best position to extole the principles that made America great - and a magnet for immigrants - in the first place. Isn't that a better strategy than competing for the votes of welfare moochers?
Besides, the usual reaction of a new immigrant family to a great new place is to seek to shut out any further immigration; to close the door behind them. That would seem to be a currently untapped demographic.
Old, but funny:
http://www.bigsoccer.com/soccer/bill-archer/2012/05/02/girls-at-soccer-games-are-like-yucky-and-stuff/
All MLS employees undergo diversity and sensitivity training on an annual basis, and Mr. Borg and the entire MLS Digital group will receive additional sensitivity training promptly.
You have diversity and sensitivity trainings in USA? Wow!
The Republican Party ought to adopt the motto on the former tombstone of the late Sir Jimmy Savile: It was good while it lasted.
Someday in the future I hope never to hear the names Bush, Clinton or Kennedy. They are curses upon us that have lasted for way too many years.
I pointed out in January 2004 that the Bush immigration policy made no sense from a Republican standpoint
Or from an American standpoint.
Steve,
Please secure a copy of "Second Civil War" --- a made for HBO movie starring Phil Hartman as the president of the United States and Beau Bridges as the governor of Idaho.
I am starting to think that four more years of Obama will better for raising white consciousness. Romney will spend his time trying to prove he's not a racist and rolling over for non-whites.
http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_4_california.html
How the hell is the Republican party supposed to "tap" the expanding Hispanic population without going, like, you know, becoming a carbon copy of the Democratic party? Then, who would represent the right/white people in America?
The problem with our current political environment is that we have no political party that represents the interests of working class and lower middle class whites. The GOP is too busy catering to affluent whites who keep their labor costs low by employing illegal immigrants from Latin America. The Democrats see white gentiles as evil incarnate and so openly pursue policies that undermine our economic interests e.g. affirmative action.
Interesting that we might see Texas going blue just in time to watch Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc. go red. Working class whites up north might eventually start to figure it all out - if only the GOP can do something to secure their votes.
This is all OT, but I've seen this data before noting that older workers are snapping up the lion's share of new jobs.
Do you think it has anything to do with race, i.e., employers preferring older, whiter workers to the younger, browner, less educated alternative?
Sorry Steve. No Sense "From a Republican POV"? Depends on *what* Republican view you're talking about.
From the standpoint of the Country club Republican the current trajectory of American politics is A-OK. Replacement of the white working class by Latinos may mean electoral defeat for the party but money in the pocket for the well-to-do.
The rich don't care whether the "R" or "D" politicians rule only that they make money and more money.
I live in Texas, a minority majority state, and have noticed that 100% of the statewide offices are held by Republicans. There is a growing number of Hispanic Republicans, who appreciate traditional family issues and a business friendly state.
So please don't stereotype all Latinos as wanting to use the social safety net as a hammock. Some do, as do some members of every ethnic group. But many more came to Texas to build a good life for their families.
Lazy Latinos can live in California and other blue states, and hard working Latinos can live in Texas and vote Republican.
Fuck this guy. Jeb says it's the Republicans fault for not bending over completely for Mexican interests. As if there were never any options that could have curbed the mestizo boom in the first place. Americans who marry foreigners should automatically be viewed with utmost suspicion.
2nd-waver feminist backfill on "The Marriage Gap" in today's Daily Beastweek, by Eleanor Clift (strong new evidence that she is in fact Whiskey). Since you have Google Alerts on these I trust you've already heard by now, boss
"Jeb Bush believes Texas will be “blue” by 2016"
A similar headline from 1940:
Vidkun Quisling predicts "most of Norway will be german-speaking by 1944".
"How the hell is the Republican party supposed to "tap" the expanding Hispanic population without going, like, you know, becoming a carbon copy of the Democratic party?"
Become a socially conservative, economically leftist party - along the European model. Basically a Catholic type party. Southern Democrats used to be that party until the 1960s and most of them bolted for the GOP. There is still a socially conservative wing of the GOP that doesn't trust big business, likes federal pork for its constituents, and is not reflexively anti-union. It seemed like Huckabee was toying with that approach at one time.
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/October-2012/Downtown-Chicago-Grows-and-Grows-Younger-as-the-Rest-of-the-City-Ages-and-Shrinks/
What's that, more immigration? Hum. By the way, anyone notice this story?
"Swiss environmentalists force referendum on immigration"
"Swiss Ecopop group forces immigration referendum"
"It wants annual population growth through immigration capped at 0.2% and a tenth of foreign aid to be used for birth control measures abroad."
I think I'm noticing a lot of environmental problems and over-population around here...
Obama won South Texas in 2008. and Texas Mexicans are more on the free and reduce lunch programs since Texas is now 45 percent Hispanics at the school age. Houston has a Lesbian Mayor thanks to blacks and Hispanics and liberal whites. Shelia Jackson Lee represents that area and is pretty left. Conservative Republicans are in a fantasy if the think that the state will not one of these days go purple.
Anonymous:" I live in Texas, a minority majority state, and have noticed that 100% of the statewide offices are held by Republicans. There is a growing number of Hispanic Republicans, who appreciate traditional family issues and a business friendly state.
So please don't stereotype all Latinos as wanting to use the social safety net as a hammock. Some do, as do some members of every ethnic group. But many more came to Texas to build a good life for their families.
Lazy Latinos can live in California and other blue states, and hard working Latinos can live in Texas and vote Republican."
Looks like someone has been at the Kool Aid.
Syon
If Hispanics registered and voted at the same percentage rate Whites did, Texas might already be blue.
x said:
"How the hell is the Republican party supposed to "tap" the expanding Hispanic population without going, like, you know, becoming a carbon copy of the Democratic party? Then, who would represent the right/white people in America?"
That's the 64 Dollar Question in some ways. What does the Republican Party become?
Our internet host thinks the Democratic Party is an unstable coalition; maybe so, but that is a relative thing.
I think the Republican Party is far more unstable than the Democratic Party, it's actually amazing they've avoided having more internal strife than they have.
A lot of people here "Want to Believe," as The X Files put it. I haven't seen anything so far that indicates anything but a fairly close popular vote, and an Electoral College blowout for Obama.
I think this election is the last go round for this version of the Republican Party. I think it is the last one they had a decent shot at winning on the issues and style they have now.
So what happens? I don't know. Right now I'd guess the Northern Republicans like Bloomberg and Christie form the nucleus of a new version of the party, one that can attract more of the moderates and some of the Democrats.
Or maybe they go to the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party becomes a regional party of the Midwest and an increasingly minority South.
Either way I think this is the last hurrah of the Tea Party being relevant. To my mind they never were relevant to be honest. I think the powers that be were happy to indulge them on social issues that they didn't really care about or that didn't affect them.
But if they ever dared to impede something that was actually considered important I think they got an attitude adjustment pretty quickly.
One of the interesting things is, that you could actually make a coalition of blacks and "prole" whites to oppose immigration that would have pretty hefty voting numbers. Of course neither of those groups think outside the box much, and in the end are organized by people "above" them anyway.
Obama has pledged to "help communities of color" in his second term. He called them "the future of our workforce".
Can you assist us with a citation?
If 30% of mex-texers are con, their alliance with whites will keep texas con.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/US_Election04-08shift.png/800px-US_Election04-08shift.png
Looks like those republican voting Hispanic Americans in Texas are really expanding in number by leaps and bounds.
Just look at all the white males who cheerlead for East Asians. It's one of the reasons why East Asians are viewed favorably while blacks are not because white males don't want to have sex with black women.
The fact that blacks have much higher crime rates than any other racial group is a much more important factor than who white guys want to sleep with.
I am starting to think that four more years of Obama will better for raising white consciousness.
People were saying stuff like this in 2008. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.
By way, it will be slightly amusing to see what the "the polls are all a conspiracy, sampling, sampling!!!" pundits in the GOP blogosphere will do come Wednesday.
You're a complete idiot, Mr Sneering McSneerester. The polls predict that Romney will win.
To answer my own question back in the first comment, Jeb Bush got 56% of the non-Cuban Hispanic vote in 2002 (according to Wikipedia). That's decent, but not exactly dominant considering he's married to a Mexican woman and Hispanders for all he's worth. Also, he won that election 56-43, so apparently his Democratic opponent wasn't all that inspiring. Had it been a closer race overall, presumably that would have meant some Hispanic votes going to the other side.
If a guy who's practically an honorary Mexican can only pull 56% of Hispanics in a landslide election, what chance do ordinary white Republicans have? His brother George and John McCain did their best, and they couldn't break 40%. What's Romney supposed to do that those guys didn't -- pick up a couple more wives named Consuela and Rosarita?
The daughter of Professional Hispanic Republican Alex Castellanos has an op-ed at CNN today, too, endorsing Willard. Basically I think you will want to see her accompanying photo, which is enjoyable on several levels. i.e. She looks like an Olay pitchwoman
"Working class whites up north might eventually start to figure it all out - if only the GOP can do something to secure their votes. "
Haha. The only thing the GOP truly stands for is corporate profits. Paying working class whites a family-building wage cuts into those profits, so the GOP will never ever go for it.
Short of some sort of miraculous turnaround in the true allegiance of our elect and Media-Pravda, omething tells me that I'm not the only one around here who's going to be getting a lot of use out of Google Translator.
"So please don't stereotype all Latinos as wanting to use the social safety net as a hammock. Some do, as do some members of every ethnic group. But many more came to Texas to build a good life for their families. "
Regardless whether they work hard or mooch off the government, ALL mestizos have shown a consistent and overwhelming preference for laxer immigration restrictions for their own people. They will vote for the candidate that allows them to immigrate in any numbers, which if you haven't read the polls is something the majority of true Americans do not and have never desired. I don't care if most of the first generation Mexicans will vote against welfare increases, because those kinds of policies are always subject to change anyway. What I care about is what happens once a low-IQ Spanish-speaking Indian comes to my city and pops out a dozen 85s who are at birth "Americans" we are stuck with forever.
"Besides, the usual reaction of a new immigrant family to a great new place is to seek to shut out any further immigration; to close the door behind them. That would seem to be a currently untapped demographic."
Preposterous. Historically and presently, the first reaction of a new immigrant to a great new place is to immediately encourage and enable all of his close family (and often much of his extended family) to follow him to the new land. I know my own family did it (have seen the passenger arrival records) along with millions of others. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act reserves 74% of new immigrations for family reunification.
Peter A:
The social democrat model only works in first world countries. If you export most of your industrial jobs, and then import millions of third world poor, it doesn't work. What works in Scandinavia won't work in Mexico. And we are trending more toward Mexico than Scandinavia demographically.
Norville Roberts:
". i.e. She looks like an Olay pitchwoman"
That's funny because it's so true.
Anon:
"Haha. The only thing the GOP truly stands for is corporate profits. Paying working class whites a family-building wage cuts into those profits, so the GOP will never ever go for it."
That's actually not really true. Corporations are often flexible enough to make money both in countries with high wages and in those with low wages, by differentiating their products. E.g., India's Tata sells Jaguars and Land Rovers in first world countries, and more of their own brand cheap cars in India. American corporations do the same.
The demand for cheap illegal alien labor is mainly from small businesses such as landscapers and restaurateurs, not big corporations.
Someone up thread asks "wither the National Republican party?" - Simple, just look at California or NY/NJ. Conservatives? Goodbye. Future elections will be between Moderate Republicans and Liberal Democrats, with the R's gaining office only when the D's screw-up.
The demand for cheap illegal alien labor is mainly from small businesses such as landscapers and restaurateurs, not big corporations.
You're wrong. If you recall who the major lobbyists were behind the Bush amnesty proposals, they were ag-business, the real-estate business, hotels, lawyers, the CoC, and unions.
That includes plenty of big corporations. Landscapers and restaurateurs don't have the clout to make Uncle Sam dance to their tune. The like the tune, sure, but they're not the ones calling it.
" Matthew said...
This is all OT, but I've seen this data before noting that older workers are snapping up the lion's share of new jobs.
Do you think it has anything to do with race, i.e., employers preferring older, whiter workers to the younger, browner, less educated alternative?"
Well, the problem is that the workforce in the critical 25-54 age demographic are losing jobs like crazy and they are more white than the nation at large. Not only in that age bracket, but also in terms of employability. In other words, when you discount criminals and social pathologies, it becomes even more white.
Yet that age bracket has been bleeding jobs. Check the white employment-to-population ratio for the 25-54 year olds. It has barely budged. That is a much better indicator for how the labor conditions are for whites in their prime.
And it's better for Asians in large part because they have higher educational attainments. Also, VDare has done Lord's work on highlightning the fact that immigrants have gotten much more jobs than natives among the younger.
So prime-age working whites in the 24-54 bracket have not had it easy at all and many of them are qualified.
Hispanics actually have a higher employment-to-population ratio(and they've had it for quite some years even before Obama took office).
Still, somehow the white unemployment is at 7% and in Texas it's now below 5%.
But unemployment stats mean little.
"I am starting to think that four more years of Obama will better for raising white consciousness."
People were saying stuff like this in 2008. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.
Yes.. a slow cook. By the time people realize what's happening they'll be old, if ever. The younger generation will not have even a memory of such things. In class they will teach them how evil the world once was
By the way, look at this chart on the enthusiasm of young people in America for socialism:
When I was 18, I was a fan of socialism, too. Many, if not most young adults, especially college students, are. The expression "If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative at 40, you have no head" still holds true.
I think the republicans could defeat the democrats if they keep their conservative ideas on gay marriage and abortion, but become more pro welfare State, something like the European Christian Democratic parties (the one of Merkel)
The above scenario is the worst of all possible worlds. I think exactly the opposite: that the Republicans could beat the Democrats by unhinging the party from the contingent that meddles in social matters of personal choice, and by doubling down on helping small business and trying to keep tax low. Everybody likes having the opportunity to make as much money as possible, the opportunity to keep as much of that money as possible, and the opportunity to spend it as they choose.
The Democrats are the party "that meddles in social matters of personal choice".
The only people who are unaware of this are already solidly on the left.
Sex will turn any white male into a cheerleader for non-white people. Just look at all the white males who cheerlead for East Asians.
This post inspired me to google Jeb Bush's wife. Holy crap did he marry WAY below his pay grade.
I don't see most white men agitating for sex with five-foot tall Aztecs.
The Mexicans that were legalized under Reagan are aging and qualify for Social Security maybe a million of them will return home. Older Whites have been heading to Mexico why can't retired Mexicans legalized under Reagan do the same. Health Care is cheaper in Mexico than the states if you have a little money and old people spent money on Health Care.
Another good sign is Mexicans are leaving Catholicism for Protestant churches hence the probation against birth control is dropped. Most of the evangelical churches are just anti-abortion not anti-birth control. Mexican government is still pushing down births hopefully it will reach 2 children.
Some regulation is good no regulation has help the illegal messed and no taxes has helped the underground economy that's why the tea party and libertarians encourage the immigrant mess we in, because they are hostile to having someone enforcing laws to prevent someone from hiring someone who is illegal.
Well in Orange County the ag-business didn't have the clout since that industry is small at 1 percent. The restaurants, landscapers, Hotels and factories did, those business outside of the Central Valley pushed Reagan for legalization along with real estate. La and OC Republicans according to Ed Rollins pushed for the Irca act since they were Reagan's biggest donors.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638
By the way, look at this chart on the enthusiasm of young people in America for socialism:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-01/americans-aged-18-29-have-more-favorable-response-socialism-capitalism
It shows no such thing. It shows, instead, that they have a more favorable impression of the undefined word "socialism". They don't know what socialism is, nor does anyone else since the term no longer has a meaning.
"Anonymous said...
""Obama has pledged to "help communities of color" in his second term. He called them "the future of our workforce".""
Can you assist us with a citation?"
Apparently, he told this to a black reporter in a web interview:
http://aprildryan.com/2012/10/29/april-ryans-sit-down-interview-with-president-obama/
DaveinHackensack:
I am talking about the opposite of the Social Democrat model. I am talking about a Christian Democratic model - sort of the way Italy was run in the 1960s or arguably Japan and South Korea are run now. Pretty much the opposite of Libertarianism - enforce conservative traditional social policies, restrict immigration but provide political pork to your supporters and protect local industries with tarrifs and subsidies. I'm not 100% in favor of such a program - it is just interesting that a strain of conservatism that has been very strong in Europe, Latin America and especially Asia, has had no traction in the US since the Dixiecrats bolted for the more libertarian GOP.
Everybody likes having the opportunity to make as much money as possible, the opportunity to keep as much of that money as possible, and the opportunity to spend it as they choose.
Some people like to get as much money as possible with no effort if possible. Such people are natural democrats.
America's future can be seen in California. Republicans fighting for low taxes, democrats fighting for more "investment" with spiralling deficits as the political compromise.
On a related story Scots-Irish Fred Hiatt sees signs of a budding stalinist in Putin in his piece in the washington post. He must have missed Obama's joke in the third debate.
" Landscapers and restaurateurs don't have the clout to make Uncle Sam dance to their tune."
Alone, no. That's why they join the Chamber of Commerce.
Most large corporate employers don't hire illegals. It's not worth the risk to them. You're more likely to see a small independent hotel or ranch hiring illegals than, say, Starwood or ADM.
Thanks, Steve. That's yet another reason to elect Mitt — to keep the Bush boys out. I elaborate on that point here:
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2012/11/hey-wait-one-more-reason-to-vote-for.html
Kaus makes a good case why an Obama victory is better for conservatives.
vote for obama and gridlock.
http://dailycaller.com/author/mickeykaus/
I'm surprised they didn't cite the bogus "Bush got 42% of the Hispanic vote" myth.
Post a Comment