Archive for the ‘Hispanics’ Category
If this LTE doesn’t make you see red, then you’re a heartless leftist ideologue that cares more about ideology than people. Here’s what’s got me seeing red:
This Minnesota family is a young married couple with three children. Until ObamaCare and Dayton’s MNsure came along they shared the cost of their Blue Cross-Blue Shield family health insurance policy 50/50 with the father’s employer. Thanks to ObamaCare, the cost of that policy sky rocketed and is no longer affordable to the family. After endless hours of working with MNsure, here is what resulted.
Without the parent’s consent, MNsure jammed their three children onto government insurance. The children are now covered by Medicaid at no cost to the family or employer, but 100 percent cost to the taxpayers. The father had to go with a single insurance plan from his employer and purchase a separate new policy for his wife. Because of the confusion and disarray at MNsure, neither he nor his wife currently has health insurance ID cards for the insurance they have already paid for.
The family and the employer were paying their own way for a good insurance policy that covered all members of the family. Today they are hostage to three different insurance policies. The husband and wife’s deductibles have doubled. The cost of the two adult policies is about equal to the old policy that covered the entire family. Their family dentist does not accept Medicaid, so they are also out dentist shopping for the children. President Obama, Gov. Dayton and the DFL majority in St. Paul decided they knew better what this family needed.
This proud, responsible, self-reliant family has always paid their own way. Their children are now on government insurance that was intended for those individuals that could not afford health insurance. The parents now have two different insurance policies to deal with, plus the Medicaid policies for their children. In addition to hurting this family’s self-esteem by having others pay for their children’s health insurance, the adults’ deductibles and co-pay for prescription drugs have sky rocketed, seriously damaging their overall financial well-being. To add insult to injury, Obama and Dayton have the audacity to count this family as one of the uninsured Minnesota families they have provided health insurance for.
I wrote this post to highlight how the Democrats’ chanting points included the fairy tale that the new policies people were getting forced into were vastly superior to the policies they had. I’d triple-dog dare Rep. Pallone to tell that to this family. If he tried peddling that BS to them, it’s quite possible that Rep. Pallone would wind up with a punctured backside, compliments of this family.
In fact, I’d argue that the only way a family would get shoved into their current policies is if government regulations shoved these policies down the family’s throats. What family would have 3 different insurance policies if they had the option of putting the entire family on a single policy, especially if their first policy came with lower deductibles?
The simple truth is that families would choose the policy that a) kept the entire family on a single policy and b) had significantly lower deductibles if they had that option. In fact, if that was a poll question, I’d bet that 95% of the people polled would opt for the single policy with low deductibles.
Thanks to Gov. Dayton and the DFL ideologues in the legislature, families didn’t have that option. That’s terrible. Simply put, that situation shouldn’t happen. Period. If not for the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, and MNsure, this family wouldn’t have gotten shoved into that inferior health insurance policy.
There’s no escaping the fact that Sen. Franken, Gov. Dayton and the DFL legislature own this mess. Their talk about caring about families is schtick. If they cared about families, they wouldn’t shove families into this situation. Sen. Franken started the ball rolling by voting for the ACA. Gov. Dayton lobbied for the health insurance exchange, aka the HIX. Without the HIX, this family wouldn’t be in that difficult position. Rep. Joe Atkins and Sen. Tony Lourey wrote the legislation that created the exchange. Then the DFL voted en masse for the exchange.
By contrast, Republicans didn’t vote for the ACA. They didn’t vote to create the exchange. They don’t share the blame for this disaster. The DFL owns this disaster lock, stock and barrel. That’s the inescapable truth. Next November, the DFL will feel the voters’ wrath for creating this disaster.
Friday night, the trio of David Schultz, Kathryn Pearson & Stacey Hunter-Hecht were guest panelists on Almanac. Predictably, Dr. Schultz bemoaned the fact that Republican moderates were nowhere to be found in the House on immigration.
This isn’t a big thing because Dr. Schultz hasn’t had a new idea in years, possibly decades. Further, Dr. Schultz has been a shill for the DFL for nearly all that time.
The problem with the Senate amnesty bill isn’t that there aren’t enough GOP moderates in the House. The problem with the Senate amnesty bill is that conservatives know it isn’t a solution to the problem it’s meant to fix. I wrote here about the gaping hole in the ‘Border Trickle’ in the Senate Amnesty Bill:
On page 35, line 24 of the new bill, a provision was inserted that says Napolitano–who already believes the border is secure–can decide against building a fence if she chooses not to erect one:
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), nothing in this subsection shall require the Secretary to install fencing, or infrastructure that directly results from the installation of such fencing, in a particular location along the Southern border, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the Southern border at such location.
In other words, House conservatives see this as a sham provision. It doesn’t secure the border. It doesn’t fix the problem. Its only purpose was to provide political cover for weak-kneed Senate Republicans.
House Republicans shouldn’t budge from their demand for a real solution to immigration. That means a border fence. That means 5 straight years of enforcing current immigration laws. That means no catch and release. That means implementing E-Verify.
Dr. Schultz’s lamentations about the lack of House GOP moderates is silliness parading as thoughtful policymaking. The Senate Amnesty Bill has a gaping hole in it. Milton Friedman, the late, great economist, was fond of asking where the halfway point between right and wrong was.
When the gap between House conservatives and the Senate Amnesty Bill are this immense, Dr. Friedman’s question should be modified to ask what the halfway point is between a solution and a disaster.
The Senate Amnesty Bill is a disaster. The CBO says that it doesn’t stop illegal immigration, meaning that the Republicans who voted for the Senate bill voted for a bill that will cause us to revisit the issue 5-7 years from now.
If I were advising House Republicans on this issue, I’d advise them to highlight the failure of the Senate bill to fix the problem. I’d send Speaker Boehner and Rep. Trey Gowdy out daily to any TV news program to talk about the need for a real solution. I’d have them pick a fight with Chuck Schumer, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. I’d have them ask why they support a bill that doesn’t fix the problem.
It’s really that simple.
As I write this, Republicans are playing the role they often play: that of the timid, unprincipled party. They’re doing a terrible job negotiating the immigration bill. It’s time for them to tell Sen. Schumer that there won’t be a bill unless the fence is built. Yesterday, Sen. Schumer lied through his teeth when he said that building a fence “might take years and years and years.” A double fence doesn’t take long to build once there’s a will to do it.
Republicans should run from this bill. Instead, they’re giving platitude-filled speeches on the subject:
Sen. Marco Rubio stayed away from specific immigration reform policies during a talk Thursday, reiterating that America must be recognized as an exemplary nation that welcomes those seeking freedom they don’t have in their home countries.
“What we have is special,” Rubio said. “Every single human life is worthy of the protection of our values. Who else will do it if not us?”
The Florida Republican also appealed to America’s religious heritage, asserting that as the “salt of the earth,” the United States has a duty to be compassionate to the less-fortunate.
That’s pretty sounding Unfortunately, that isn’t what’s needed. What’s needed is for Republicans to tell Sen. Schumer that the bill isn’t going anywhere without guaranteed border security. If Sen. Schumer replies that it’s impossible to do with this bill, Republicans’ response should immediately be that it’s never impossible to build things like fences.
If Republicans vote for this immigration bill, they’ll be the minority party for a generation. They will have shown themselves to be as unprincipled as Democrats. Not as corrupt but as unprincipled.
At this point, they aren’t engaged in negotiations. They’re engaged in taking orders from Sen. Schumer. They’re frightened that the media and the DNC will paint them as mean-spirited, rigid ideologues. They shouldn’t worry about that. Democrats will paint them that way regardless of what happens.
As for Sen. Rubio, he should be ashamed. If he asserted himself on the fence, he’d win that negotiation. He isn’t asserting himself, which is why Republicans appear to be on the verge of signing onto another bad bill. If he doesn’t assert himself on that specific issue, he’ll never be president.
The bottom line is that no bill is better than a bill that doesn’t build a fence. The bottom line is that Republicans hurt themselves when they’re seen as being unprincipled. That’s what they look like now.
It’s obvious that Ryan Winkler is either the most ignorant, loud-mouthed DFL legislator or he’s totally dishonest. Rep. Winkler tweeted this during Thursday night’s speeches:
First time tuning in to RNC. Romney speech seems fine but it occurs to me GOP wants to go back to Founders: white, male property owners.
I believe Rep. Winkler when he said that Thursday night was his “first night tuning into the RNC” because he doesn’t have a clue about the racial and ethnic diversity within the GOP. Chuck Todd appreciates the GOP’s diversity:
Anyone who watched this convention knows that the GOP is filled with tons of talented newcomers and that there’s tons of diversity within this group of newcomers. Brian Sandoval and Susana Martinez wowed crowds with their speeches. That they’re Hispanic just adds to their appeal with the general public. Add them to Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley, the first governors of Indian descent, and it’s pretty obvious that the GOP is a principled big tent political party.
That’s before talking about soon-to-be US Senator-Elect Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. That’s before talking about rising rock star Mia Love, who should defeat Jim Matheson in Utah’s 4th District.
Had Rep. Winkler paid attention to the delegates in the hall, he would’ve seen a hugely diverse crowd. It’ll be difficult for the Democrats to be more diverse than the GOP’s delegates.
The TEA Party has helped grow, not to mention energize, the conservative movement. They’ve attracted men and women into the movement. Apparently, the TEA Party’s principles of limited, constitutional, government resonates with people of all ethnic, racial and religious backgrounds.
Rep. Winkler hasn’t figured it out that ABM’s charicature of the TEA Party doesn’t match reality. The Left’s charicature of the TEA Party isn’t even close to reality.
When it comes to the national stage, the so-called party of diversity are more like the Neanderthal Party. Their image of the GOP is severely outdated.
Senate Democrats plan on pushing legislation that would invalidate SB1070, the Arizona immigration law. Today starts the SCOTUS oral arguments for the Arizona law. They’d only push this legislation if the SCOTUS validates it as constitutional.
“If the court upholds the Arizona law, Congress can make it clear that what Arizona is doing goes beyond what the federal government and what Congress ever intended,” Schumer said in an interview.
He called the Arizona law an “assault on the domain of the federal government” that Congress will need to address if the court allows it to stand.
What a windbag. If the Supreme Court rules in Arizona’s favor, they will have ruled that Arizona didn’t change or set federal immigration laws. They will have ruled that they acted within the framework of federal immigration laws.
As for SB1070 being toxic to Hispanic voters, that might be true. However, it’s wildly popular with voters who don’t already lean Democrat. Simply put, this isn’t a winning issue for Democrats.
It’s just a situation where they please one demographic group but piss off a different demographic group. Since the group that Democrats would piss off is significantly bigger than the Hispanic group, it’s a net loss for the Democrats.
I’d recommend that vulnerable Senate Republicans vote for the bill so they’re protected against future ads. I’d then tell Republicans occupying strong GOP seats to defeat the bill.
I’d then instruct the House to not bring the bill up for consideration. Once that happens, the bill dies quietly.
Earlier this week, Rush Limbaugh called President Obama a “debt man walking.” Based on the statistics Karl Rove put together, I’d contend that, politically speaking, he’s a dead man walking, too:
As of August 7, the president’s approval number is down 28 points with independents (to 34% rating), 27 points with college graduates (to
42%), 26 points with women (to 43%) and with those who live in the Midwest (to 39%), 25 points with young voters (to 50%) and 23 points with points
with Hispanics (to 51%).
That means President Obama’s support has dropped with each key constituent group from 2008. That’s before factoring in turnout rates, which political experts expect to decline from 2008.
Putting approval rating statistics together with declining turnout rates and you’ve got a recipe for an electoral disaster for President Obama and the Democrats.
If President Obama wants to win back these individuals, he must do more than just talk about jobs and the economy when he goes on his Midwest bus tour next week. He had better start showing real leadership or he risks losing those them for good.
With people already being anxious over high unemployment and stagnant economic growth, people aren’t in a cut-him-some-slack mood. They’re getting more impatient by the day. That’s why I’m not certain he hasn’t lost these voters already.
People who’ve paid any amount of attention know that President Obama isn’t into listening and taking advice from advisors. He’s got too big of an ego for that. They know he won’t change because he hasn’t changed thus far.
If he won’t change after his policies have failed thus far, why should people think that he’ll change now that the 2012 election is getting closer?
Whether people look at these polling statistics, President Obama’s struggles in key battleground states that he breezed through last year, or whether they look at President Obama’s job approval ratings, it still says the same thing, that he’s heading for a humiliating defeat.
November, 2012 can’t get here soon enough.
During a townhall meeting last Friday, Sen. Jon Kyl said that President Obama told him that enforcing Arizona’s border would give Republicans less incentive to work with him on amnesty comprehensive immigration reform. According to this article, the fight between the Obama administration and Sen. Kyl has gone thermonuclear:
The White House denied the claim on Monday.
“The president didn’t say that and Senator Kyl knows it,” White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a written statement. “There are more resources dedicated toward border security today than ever before, but, as the president has made clear, truly securing the border will require a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system.”
But Kyl’s office stood by the senator’s account. Kyl spokesman Ryan Patmintra said, “There were two people in that meeting, and Dan Pfieffer was not one of them.” He said Pfeiffer’s call for comprehensive immigration legislation “only confirms” Kyl’s story.
While Obama has pledged to send an influx of National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, Kyl said in the clip that the president made clear to him that border security is just a political tool in the broader goal of passing an immigration package through Congress.
The facts speak for themselves. Sending 1,200 National guard troops is a photo op deployment. It isn’t a deployment aimed at stopping the drug cartels’ reign of violence in Phoenix. If the Obama administration was serious about stopping the violence, they would’ve sent 10,000 troops and they would’ve gone on the offensives against the drug cartels.
The violence won’t stop until this administration starts making the drug cartels pay a heavy price for their illegal activities.
With this escalation, it’s clear that this administration got stung by Sen. Kyl’s statements. If they weren’t having an effect, they wouldn’t say a word.
UPDATE: I participated in a blogger conference call with Sen. Orrin Hatch Monday afternoon. The call first focused on Sen. Hatch’s two bills to repeal the individual and employer mandates from Obamacare. Nonetheless, I was able to ask Sen. Hatch about the immigration standoff between Sen. Kyl and the Obama administration.
Specifically, I asked if the statistics on continued violence in Phoenix didn’t prove Sen. Kyl’s case. Clearly energized, Sen. Hatch said that the statistics and the continued violence indeed proved that this administration wasn’t doing its duties.
Sen. Hatch then said that the 1,200 people being deployed to our southern border wasn’t even serious, saying that he did’t even think Sen. McCain’s request for 6,000 National Guard troops probably still wasn’t enough.
In my followup, I asked Sen. Hatch if the 1,200 troops weren’t just “photo op troops” designed to take some political pressure off President Obama. Sen. Hatch said that that’s exactly their intent.
Expect this fight to intensify because Sen. Kyl is fighting to protect Arizonans and President Obama has too much to lose in this fight.
SIDENOTE: If there’s a battle between President Obama and Sen. Kyl over who’s more credible, this isn’t a fair fight. Sen. Kyl’s history is filled with honesty and measured statements whereas President Obama’s brief presidential history is filled with important broken promise after another. This isn’t a fight President Obama can win.
This administration’s best bet is to retreat. If this administration picks a fight against Sen. Kyl, they’ll hurt Democrats nationwide. They’ll force Democrats to decide between running away from this administation or suffer humiliating defeats.
That’s a foolish strategic ploy if ever I heard of one.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Rep. Keith Ellison has a habit of branding his opponents as fascists. This past weekend, Rep. Ellison was at it again, this time calling the Arizona law “a fascist, racist law“:
The Minneapolis congressman said Congress urgently needs to pass immigration reform in light of Arizona’s new law giving police more rights to detain people whom they suspect are in the country illegally. Borrowing a word normally reserved for Tea Party protests these days, Ellison called the law “fascist.”
“The fact is that we have to fight against these repressive laws in Arizona,” Ellison said. “They want to say that everybody is a criminal. They will stop anybody. We’ve got to stop these fascist, racist laws [inaudibule].”
I expected this from Rep. Ellison because he’s a reliable mouthpiece for the Democrats’ spin even if what he’s saying is utter nonsense and not based in the truth. First things first: Rep. Ellison should invest in a good dictionary and use it daily. Here’s Dictionary.com’s definition of fascist:
A reactionary or dictatorial person.
That definition exposes Rep. Ellison’s mischaracterization of Arizona’s law. I’m fairly certain that Rep. Ellison’s mischaracterization was intentional because a lawyer who’s read the law would know that Arizona’s law prohibits racial profiling.
Rep. Ellison’s mischaracterization might also be to deflect attention from the real problem, which is that the federal government’s border enforcement efforts have been pathetic at best.
Let’s hear Rep. Ellison explain how passing new laws will eliminate or even marginally reduce the violence currently happening in Arizona. Let’s hear Rep. Ellison explain why the laws currently on the books aren’t sufficient to stop the rampant violence in Arizona.
Most importantly, let’s hear Rep. Ellison explain why Democrats take campaign contributions, and marching orders, from NCLR, an organization committed to open borders policies.
Is Rep. Ellison’s mischaracterization of the Arizona law intentional? Let’s consider what Pinal County, AZ, Sheriff Paul Babeu told Greta van Susteren about the dramatic uptick in violence in Arizona:
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. All right, what happened?
BABEU: Well, he was out there, found some actual backpacks of marijuana and some other suspicious activity. And now, this is a known corridor for smuggling not only of drugs but of illegals. And so he radioed back to dispatch to call for support, and he continued to track the direction because he’s highly skilled in this as a search-and-rescue deputy.
As he was pursuing these five; he didn’t have them in sight yet; they had realized that somebody was tracking them. And so they left the rear guard behind and took cover and concealment as our deputy approached. This last suspect, who was armed with an AK-47, popped up and started shooting at our deputy, who was in uniform. They clearly knew he was an officer of the law.
And our deputy engaged. He had not only his handgun that he emptied the magazine, he also had his AR-15, which is a semi-automatic rifle that we often carry. And he returned fire, and that’s when he was shot. And he believed that he hit one of the five suspects. There was two AK-47s and they had handguns, as well.
If that’s got your attention, it gets worse:
VAN SUSTEREN: Sheriff, was he alone? I mean, because — I mean, he was — was he out there by himself? You don’t mention anybody else.
BABEU: Yes, he was alone at that time, and this is often…
VAN SUSTEREN: Why? I mean, that’s — I mean…
VAN SUSTEREN: I — you know, in the streets of D.C., where it’s a little different than the desert of Arizona…
VAN SUSTEREN: … the officers work in tandem because of the great danger. And I’m surprised to hear an officer would be or a deputy sheriff would be alone.
BABEU: We haven’t seen this type of aggressive posture against law enforcement before in our county, and this is where it’s reached a level that it is truly concerning, not only to be outgunned, the fact that they would ambush a deputy. This hasn’t happened before.
So now I’ve given direction to all of my deputies that if they’re out in remote areas and they’re doing tracking such as this that there’s at least two deputies. And they’re always to be highly armed with their AR-15, as well as their sidearm, and for us to have other deputies in the area.
So this was something that was highly unusual. We’re not a border county. We’re several counties away, and we’re the last county before, which 80 percent of all the illegals who come into Arizona have to cross through our county. So this is what is most concerning in that we in law enforcement now, we have been calling for Senator McCain, Senator Kyl, for their plan to deploy 3,000 soldiers immediately to secure our border with Mexico.
That there are paramilitary units operating within the United States should shock every American’s senses and infuriate them, too.
Rep. Ellison surely knows that we don’t need additional laws on the books to act against paramilitary units operating within the United States. Rep. Ellison surely knows that we’ve got sufficient laws to prosecute paramilitary units operating within the United States who are committing acts of violence.
Then again, Rep. Ellison has a habit of coddling violent criminals, criminals like Kathleen Soliah and others:
In 2000 he spoke at a fundraiser for longtime fugitive Kathleen Soliah, aka Sara Jane Olson. The text of his speech was posted on a website, www.soliah.com, by Minneapolis resident Greg Lang.
Ellison praised Soliah for â€œfighting for freedom.â€ At the time, she faced charges of planting pipe bombs under two Los Angeles police cars as a member of the Symbionese Liberation Army, a paramilitary organization whose slogan was â€œDeath to the fascist insect that preys on the life of the people.â€ Soliah pleaded guilty in 2001. In 2002 she also pleaded guilty to the murder of Myrna Opsahl, a bank customer shot by another SLA member during a holdup. Sheâ€™s now serving a long prison sentence.
But Ellisonâ€™s call to the crowd was broader than a plea to aid Soliah. â€œWe need to come together and freeâ€¦all the Saras,â€ he proclaimed.
It’s common knowledge in Minnesota that Rep. Ellison didn’t hesitate in defending Kathleen Soliah’s murder of Myrna Opsahl and the planting of pipe bombs in L.A. Forgive me if I discount Rep. Ellison’s use of the term fascism. It isn’t the first time he’s intentionally used incendiary language.
The nation is reaching a consensus that goes against the Progressive Democrats’ doctrine: that we must secure the border and eliminate the drug cartel-related violence that’s being perpetrated in Arizona. We don’t need new laws for that, just a president who’s willing to get serious about enforcing existing laws.
Unfortunately, thanks to enablers like Rep. Keith Ellison, we don’t have one of those right now.
Technorati: Crime, Racial Profiling, Violent Crime, Drug Cartels, Kidnappings, Murders, Arizona, Pinal County, Paul Babeu, Sheriff, Law Enforcement, Paramilitary Units, Assault Rifles, Keith Ellison, President Obama, La Raza, Special Interests, Corruption, Democrats
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Singing from President Obama’s hymnal must be a requirement to be part of President Obama’s administration. That’s what DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano is doing in calling Arizona’s emergency immigration law misguided:
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in an exclusive interview she agreed with President Obama’s assessment that Arizona’s recent rigid immigration law is “misguided” and said that the time for immigration reform, including fines and a form of biometric registration for illegal aliens as well as mandatory English, has come.
“This affects everybody, and I actually view it now as a security issue,” Napolitano told ABC News Friday during an exclusive look into a day in the life of the Homeland Security secretary. “We need to know who’s in the country. And we need to know, for those who are in the country illegally, there needs to be a period under which they are given the opportunity to register so we get their biometrics, we get their criminal history and we know who they are. They pay a fine. They learn English. They get right with the law.”
Let’s cut through the BS in Napolitano’s statements. What’s needed is for her to take her job seriously. She said that she NOW considers it to be a national security issue. Why only now, Ms. Napolitano? The border situation was bad during the Bush administration. It’s gotten worse during President Obama’s administration. Murders and kidnappings in Arizona have skyrocketed during President Obama’s administration.
Since there are laws on the books that allow the federal government to arrest and remove illegal immigrants, the first thing that needs to be done is stop the violence ASAP. Talking about comprehensive immigration reform is a political ploy, not a security strategy. It’s time DHS and this administation started reacting to the murders and kidnappings in Arizona.
Let’s ask the Obama administration and Secretary Napolitano one simple question: What’s preventing you from stopping the violence now? I’d submit that there isn’t anything except willpower stopping it. Whether immigration legislation is signed into law or not, DHS has the authority and the responsibility it needs to stop violence immediately.
What’s especially interesting is that Napolitano is calling Arizona’s immigration bill “misguided” at the same time that the WH said that DOJ lawyers were getting their first view of the bill. How did Ms. Napolitano know that Arizona’s immigration bill is misguided without reading it? The same way Democrats ‘knew’ that passing the failed stimulus bill was the right thing to do without reading it?
If President Obama wants to hide behind Secretary Napolitano and another attempted immigration bill, that’s his choice. I’ll just remind people that President Obama and his national security team that they didn’t use the capabilities already in place, that they chose instead to not stop the violence.
Like they’ve done with other issues, specifically health care, the stimulus and cap and trade, President Obama’s administration is ignoring We The People. After the Obama administration is history, the epitaph on their tombstone will read “They ignored the American people too often.”
This talk about needing comprehensive immigration reform isn’t about enforcement. It’s about election-year politicking, aka appeasing the Democrats’ special interest allies.
It’s a sad thing to see an administration play partisan politics while people are dying in Arizona because that administration won’t do what’s right. That’s why this administration needs to be limited to a single term, then replaced with an administration that actually stops the violence and closes the border.
One thing that the TEA Party movement has done is it’s refocused We The People on the basics. Border security is the federal government’s responsibility. If We The People see that they aren’t fulfilling their responsibilities, We The People won’t hesitate to replace them with an administration that will.
Technorati: Reforms, Immigration, Violence, Murders, Kidnappings, Arizona, Phoenix, Janet Napolitano, President Obama, NCLR, Special Interests, Democrats, Borders, Law Enforcement, TEA Parties, Border Patrols, Elections
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Glenn Reynolds posted a link to Scott Wilson’s article about what’s got the Democrats worried. Meanwhile, RealClearPolitics linked to Dan Balz’s article essentially declaring the GOP all but dead and buried. Let’s start with an examination of Balz’s article:
For the past few months, political analysts and demographers have been poring over the results of the 2008 election and comparing them with presidential results from the past two decades. From whatever angle of their approach, age, race, economic status, geography, they have come to a remarkably similar conclusion. Almost all indicators are pressing the Republicans into minority status.
Republicans are still capable of winning individual elections, but until they find a way to reverse, or at least minimize, these broader changes in the country, their chances of returning to majority status will be severely reduced.
Let’s compare that with what Mr. Wilson wrote:
After enjoying months of towering poll numbers, legislative victories and well-received foreign policy initiatives, the White House has become increasingly concerned that President Obama’s spending plans, which would require $9 trillion in government borrowing over the next decade, could become a political liability that defines the 2010 midterm elections.
The concern was reflected in the aggressive response from administration officials to criticism that money from Obama’s stimulus plan is arriving too slowly to help the languishing economy, as well as in the president’s public endorsement of “pay as you go” legislation, which would require Congress to make room for new non-discretionary spending with equivalent cuts to other parts of the budget. Yesterday, Obama also outlined billions of dollars in savings that would be used to pay for his health-care reform proposal.
But there is evidence of growing public concern over his fiscal policies. As he traveled Thursday in Green Bay, Wis., Obama was greeted by demonstrators holding signs that said, “No socialism” and “Taxed Enough Yet?”
I’ve never bought into the ‘demographics is destiny’ argument, especially since it’s been disproved too many times. Issues and events matter, as does quality of candidates. This cycle, Republicans have recruited alot better candidates than have Democrats. Add into this the fact that Democrats have some difficult policies and alot of vulnerable seats to defend and you’ve got a recipe for electoral disaster for Democrats in 2010.
People are getting either scared or angry at the thought of this administration firing CEOs and nationalizing major corporations. They don’t like the Democrats’ out-of-control spending and they don’t like the prospect of staring at a major inflation spike in the near future. Consumers are already getting wary of the interest rate increases. Then factor in the latest Rasmussen polling showing more people trust Republicans on properly handling the economy than Democrats. After factoring all those things in, it’s difficult for thoughtful people to not disagree with Mr. Balz’s premise.
The GOP’s problem isn’t demographics. It’s they stopped behaving like conservatives. They got complacent. They stopped being the party of ideas. Such things matter. ALOT. Mr. Balz looks only at the statistics. He should’ve looked at the causality, too, to figure out the driver for the statistics.
I’m not saying that everything is fixed within the GOP. It isn’t. What I’m saying, though, is that the Democrats’ policies have hurt their standing with independents. I’m also suggesting that the best way for Republicans to do well with Hispanics isn’t through immigration or treating Judge Sotomayor with kid gloves. It’s best achieved by understanding that a huge portion of the Hispanic vote are deeply religious and that that portion of the Hispanic population can be appealed to with socially conservative messages.
It’s time that the GOP examined President Bush’s 2004 campaign because it’s one of the best campaigns I’ve seen in terms of appealing to the broadest spectrum of voters I’ve seen. You can agree with President Bush’s policies while still learning from his campaign. It’s time we started learning those lessons.
If we do, then we’ll refute Mr. Balz’s assumptions.
Cross-posted at California Conservative