Cross-posted at Alien & Sedition.
As sure as night follows day, if you abuse a constituency long enough, it’ll turn on you. As Republican candidates ignore real Latinos and play to the white GOP base’s fear of imaginary ones, we can start to see the consequences on the horizon. For instance, via Soren Dayton, here’s the Dallas Morning News’s William McKenzie on how Republicans are losing Hispanic evangelicals:
A note here for Mitt, Fred, Rudy and the gang:
You guys gunning for the GOP nomination really should pay attention to the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez and the many other Latino evangelicals who think like the California pastor. They are natural Republicans, but if your party keeps up its anti-immigrant rhetoric, you can forget them coming your way.[...]
The defeat [of the immigration bill] has Mr. Rodriguez wondering whether “the GOP is the party of Jeff Sessions, Tom Tancredo and James Sensenbrenner or the party of George W. Bush and John McCain?” In other words, those like Mr. Tancredo who strongly opposed immigration reform or those like Mr. Bush who strongly favored it.
Right now, Mr. Rodriguez thinks, “xenophobia has triumphed over an appreciation for diversity. They completely abandoned us.”
Wow. And, remember, this is a guy who likes Republicans.
Rodriguez wasn’t the only Latino evangelical leader telling McKenzie about Hispanic anger at the GOP. While conservatives have been congratulating themselves for their “triumph” on the immigration bill — deluding themselves into believing that they somehow represented the will of the majority — the other shoe may be about to drop.
As Dayton points out:
Moderate evangelicals are swing voters, as are evangelical Hispanics. They gave Bush 1.8m votes. Those are not margins we can throw away.
2 Responses to “GOP “Abandons” Latinos; Latinos Abandon GOP”
Do not forget what happened with Hitler and Jews in Europe.
Not so long ago, the biggest dictator on earth came to power driven by anger and hate.
Everything started little by little in Germany. Jews started to be blamed for everything. Just take a look to some of the movies made by Hitler about Jews. In these films, they are depicted as criminals, thieves, a disgrace to Germany, they are filthy, they bring diseases, they are greedy, they should be removed, they should be deported, etc.
Your arguments sound familiar. Similar to the attacks made to Jews that escalated until deport them to concentration camps and exterminate a great deal of innocent people. All based on hate. Hate against other race. Hate against other people.
America had to go and rescue Europe from Hitler and his fanatics. Maybe some of your relatives fought abroad. Maybe some or many died in this fight against hate.
Something to say?
SOME OF YOU ARE SHOUTING THE RULE OF LAW
WHEN IS THE LAW, THE LAW?
Why are you claiming the rule of law against people that came here to work? Work that many of you don’t want to perform.
“Rule of law” means enforcing laws that are capable of enforcement, otherwise people merely learn disrespect for the law. Obviously, immigration laws that refuse to recognize the inevitable attraction of a lack of unskilled labor on one side of the border and a lack of employment for unskilled labor on the other is not workable no matter how much of the taxpayers’ billions get poured down a rathole of “enhanced” enforcement
Did you forget about the prohibition time, when many illegal activities flourished, including the rise of the mafia? This is exactly what happens when laws are NOT capable of enforcement. Black market and illicit activities are the result.
Did you know that President Carter gave pardon for those that did not join the war in Vietnam? Many went to Canada, and others flew to Mexico.
You sure know that President Ford gave full pardon to Nixon because of the Watergate scandal.
And according to what it is known, Nixon violated blatantly the law in many issues and on a great scale. This does not mean that therefore, others must violate the law. But what I am saying is that in the history of this great country there are some examples of amnesty or whatever you want to call it.
But you are in uproar claiming this very same rule of law.
Ruthless to the poor, but silent for others. Quick to harm the weak, but smiling to the strongest.
Isn’t this called hypocrisy?
Left by memo
October 4, 2007 at 9:58pm