Will immigration be the death knell of the GOP?
And no, I don't mean that question the way those clueless immigration hard-liners will undoubtedly read it.
Immigration hawkishness among Republicans cost us Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-Tex) on Tuesday.
Reactionary short-sightedness appears to be close to succeeding in driving Hispanics-the fastest-growing American electoral bloc, one of the most socially conservative, and one which was becoming increasingly Republican before the right-wing lemmings chose to take their stand on the losing issue of immigration- into permanent residence in the Democratic party.
HT: RealClearPolitics
Comments
People say they vote 'for the man; not the party.' Well, trusting that they actually mean it and actually do vote thusly, they made some bad choices of 'man' in lots of areas: Mollohan in WVa, Casey in Pa, Ellis in MN, Webb in Va.--to name a more infamous few. Webb is ego-on-parade, Mollohan=chutzpah, Casey is empty nepotism, and Ellis just plain scary.
As for the immigration issue: I think we can credit the President for much of that dreck. He's done as much as anyone to split the party on that issue alone, and more than he's done to articulate and to bind the party behind the war in Iraq and on terror generally. He's made us more than confused; we're downright schizophrenic. He's riled rather than rallied.
I'm very disappointed in his leadership; he's given us little to follow. He seems to throw things out there--justifications for the war, the need for permanent taxcuts, an idea (as opposed to a plan) for illegal immigrants, then waste useful time just reeling in surprise at the reaction of his base. He appears to take for granted that he's 1) got our attention -- over the noise the press makes on all the peripheral stuff? Not a chance! 2) that Congress is there behind him, more eager to win the war than an election, and ready to press ahead legislatively, and 3) that because he's said the same things over and over, we're getting it. We're not. If it's not obvious to him now (and I don't think it is, the way he's dilly-dallied since election day through the ISG report and countless meetings with countless parties--warfare by committee, I guess), then maybe it will sink in when we lose the White House in '08, that terror-states and terror-mongers didn't take breaks for meetings and votes and a show of hands as to who's on board with what.
I'm not getting this final phase of his Presidency. I'd like more Bang but we're getting too much Whimper.
It's called "leadership," and the President can't help it if his base is heavily composed of people who are utterly clueless when it comes to exercising and retaining power in the real world.
I will grant that the MSM does a fairly determined job of neutralizing that leadership. Too bad the lunatic fringe on the Right has joined in of late.
For me, I don't know that it's a question of losing the presidency in 2008. Everything depends on who we nominate. I think it's more a question of whether the base deserves to win. I'm fairly disgusted with it right now.
Maybe eight years of Hillary will be enough to get their attention.
However, I respectfully disagree that the President offered a workable plan. He offered, um, something, leaving the actual plan, I think to Congress. Who punted. But not without blowing a few stacks in opposition.
That's what I meant about Bush putting 'stuff' out there, then not following up in a timely, let alone aggressive, manner. And then seeming to be flummoxed. That is *not* leadership. That's just making speeches; it's just dreaming.
Yes! The Republican base is feckless! But no one turned them on. Turning them on would have been leadership.
We will get immigration reform with the new Congress. Nothing Dubyah could have done would have gotten it through the old one.
Two things, first, your only talking about one election in one cycle, do you really think that any Republican was blown out of office solely because of immigration? Seems a little simplistic to me.
And do remember that the majority of Democrats certainly couched their campaign rhetoric in restrictionist language. In fact I believe only one ran on an open amnesty platform, and lost.
Second, if this issue is so offputting to Hispanics why do the anti-illegal immigration ballot issues do so well amongst Hispanics? Only one has ever lost and all those that passed ( I believe ) passed with a Hispanic majority.
I'm certainly curious about that, aren't you?
Can you document your claim about Hispanics voting for such measures? I'd be fascinated to see the evidence. I would be amazed if you were right, or even had any basis for your beliefs on this matter in fact. By every measurement, the Hispanic community sees the hard line on immigration by what is perceived as the Republican party as a declaration of war upon them, and are reacting accordingly.
Nor am I talking about one election cycle. I'm talking about having the Republican party being perceived precisely as having declared war on the Hispanic community at the very moment when a hitherto Democratic voting bloc was beginning to turn. Just another example of the utter genius of the far Right for squandering political influence and power and defeating its own objectives by its ideological rigidity and utter insensitivity to political reality.
In Bonilla's case (and those discussed in teh article to which the post links), yes. It was clearly about immigration, and only about immigration. And given the effect the far Right's reaction tot he immigration issue is having on the Hispanic community, we may well have seen the last Republican victory in a presidential election for a very, very long time.