Friday, November 9, 2012

GOP and Illegal Immigration: Absurdity That Hispanics Want Identificatin With Illegal Immigrants (Limbaugh Gets It Right)

I have been criticizing Rush Limbaugh, and especilly his idea that Mitt Romney was a GOOD CANDIDATE, who lost merely because the Aemricn peole want to be BRIBED (too many of the). Limbaug is right, of course, that too many peoe want the Federal Government to take care of them, wiuout ever realizing it will COST them more than they can ever afford (even if they pay not one dime in taxes).  But, I am right and Lmibaugh is wrong: Romney was a bad candidate; Romney would have won if he were a good canddiate. Just becaue Limbaugh "liked" Romney, and Romney was the kind of successful man Limbaugh praises, did not make Romney a good candidate. But Limbaugh was rIGHT today when he said that the GOP is deluded if they think what they need to do to "win" the Hispanic vote is agree to some form of AMNESTY (some form of incentive for more illegal immigrants to come here, by giving substantial benefits to those who make it here, and/or stay here, illegally).  As Limbaugh said today, this is FALSE.  I have correcly informed you repeatedly that Hispanics (generally) vote Democrat--especially in Presidential and Fother Federal elecotns--because they are POOR (on average, poorer than the average American, mainly because so many of them, or their families, are so recently citizens of this country).  Limbaugh put it in the ay taht fit his narrative as to Romney losing the election because conservatives are now OUTNUMBERED by eeople who "want stuff".  Thus, Limbuagh said that Democrats win more of the Hispanic vote because so many of them "want stuff".  Tha is essentially correct, although Romney was a hoopeless candidate for Hispanics., with Ryan.  40% of El Paso peole are on FOOD STAMPS  Are those peole more likely to vote for Obama--the "food stamp President", or for Romney--unless Romney gives them GOOD REASONS to vote otherwise?  That is a "no brainter."  It is absurd to suggest that the prolem is that the GOP wnats to stop illegal immigration, and not reward illegal immigrants who make it here.  That is simpply media/leftist Democrat PROPAGANDA. 

However, Rush Limbuagh did cite something today that I had not known, and PROVES this ponit (assuming the numbers are accurate, as yoiu know what I think about these "polls' as to how people voted--polls that, at best, divide us). .  Yu all probably know that Ronald Reagan 49 states in 1984 (missing ONLY Mondale's home state of Minnesota, and NOT Massachusetts, a mistake I sometimes make).  You probably also know that Reagan granted AMNESTY to some 3 MILLIION illegal immigrants in 1986, based on TWO promises that turned out to be FALSE: 

1.  It would be the LAST proposed amnesty, because we would "secure the border" and not allow illeal immigrants to "build up" in this country again.

2.  That the amnesty would ONLY go to illegal immigrants who could PROVE they had been in this country for at least 5 years (if I remember correctly, although it does not matter because of the reslt) . In practive, INS was siply unable to HANDLE the required investigation" of how long people had been in this country (an impossible task, then and now)  This turned the program into a GENERAL AMNESTY for essentially everyone who applied and made any effort at all.

This is what the GOP is now FALSELY being told it should do, once again to "solve" the problem forever (but really to avoid "losing" the Hispanic vote, as if Hispanics vote mainly on ILLEGAL immigratino) . This is where Limbaugh comes in.  Reagan got some 37% of teh Hispanic vote in 1984, because he was a GOOD candidate.  AFTER this AMNESTY program, obviusly to the "credt" of VP George H. W. Bush as weel, the 1988 electin was held  Bush ws not as good a candidate as Regan, as he proved in 1992, but Bush won in what was really the third Reagan landslide.  Bush's Hispanci vote went UP, right?  Bush had just given, in conjunctin with Reagan ,this AMNESTY.  Nope.  The Bush share of the Hispanic vote went DOWN, to 30% (not much better than Romney's share, and Bush won in a LANDSLIDE in the overall vote). Q.E.D.  I agee with Limbaugh that these facts, assuming they are true, CONCUSIVELY PROVE that the GOP cannot "win over" conseravtives by jsut agreeing to some form of amnesty.  What the GOP will really do, if it takes such a course, is LOSE more votes than it gains (likely to be not manyy) . I know Hispanics are a more 'important" part of the electorate now.  Doesn't matter.  The PRINCIPLE is still the same, and so long as most Hispanics think they are DEPENDENT on the Federal Government, and need to vote Democrat to keep their benefits, they are not going to be affected by a GOP vote for amnesty . If they CHANGE this pattern, they still are not going to be affected by a GOP vote for amnesty.

Unlikje Limbuagh, I consider facts that do NOT support my thesis.  George W. Bush--I think in both of his electinss--did better among Hsipanics than other GOP candiaates have done.  I THINK this is true, although it depnds o the mainstream media getting things right (a very weak reed).  Now George W. Bush DID favor AMNESTY (the McCain.Kennedy/Obama/Bush bill, although Obama thought it was not enough amnesty).  That bill was proposed in 2006, and could hardly have affected the 2000 and 2004 Bush victories.  I don't think this affects the aove analysis, although it does suggest I am RIGHT about Romney. Romney did not do as well as McCain OR Bush among Hispanics.  Problem:  this COULD be merely because the RECESSIONI occureeed, and Hispancis were POORER (along with everyone else) in 2012 (and foolishly did not connect a lot of that to Obama, but blamed the GOP/Bush and thought they needed to keep the benefits Obama was promising he would make sure they kept).  Am I sayhing the mainstream media is STuPID to make a big point out of Romney getting a lesser percentage of the Hispanic vote than McCain?  Sure.  What else is new?  But Bush getting more of the Hispanic vote tends to prove MY pont:  Romney was a bad candiddate, while Bush  was able to "connect" more twiht Hispanics.

Doubt me.  Bush was GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, and had a long-standing reputatin of attracting Hispanic voters.  Texas has a LOT of Hispanic voters, and yet GGOP candidates win (although not usually in the El Paso Presidential vote).  Partly, I think, this is because Hispanics in Texas DO BETTER economically, because TEXAS does better.  This proves BOTH Limbaugh and me right on how Hispanics vote.  El Paso is a poor city, by Texas standards, and is thus a Democratic city.  But Bush has a HISPANIC wife, and knows how to tal the language (literally).  This ability to RELATE to Hsipanics is what realy helped Bush, and not "amnesty".  I now.  Ann Richards once said that W was "born with a silver sppon in his omouth", but Bush was still not a WALL ST. type like Romney.  He was more a "regular guy", if with a Texas swatter, who was used to relating to peple of Hispanic heritage and culture. 

No. The GOP will make a major mistake if it buys into the idea that what it needs to "cmpete" for the Hispanic vote is a form of AMNESTY.  I can't tell you how deluded that is, although I have tried.  But you know what I think of the GOP, as an institution  Death wish.  What did peole "vote for" in this elecitn?  They voted for the STATUS QUO.  This elecoithn ended up with EXACTLY (minus 2 seasts or so in te House) the same makeup of the Presidency and Congresss that existed before the eleciotn.  That means the GOP CONSOLIDATED thir EXTREME gains n the House from the 2010 election.  Really, the logical result of this is to keep the status quo (on spending, taxes, etc.) for the next two years, even if that is TERRIBLE for the DEFICIT.  Did you observe that ANY politicans really CARED about the defict in this laast electin, or that the peole were really pushing on it?  Neither did I.  Disaster in the making, but the idea that the GOP should ABANDON PRINCIPLES jsut because they lost the Presidency again (by a MUCH smaller margin) is insane.  The GOP House was ELECTED to do the SAME tings for which it was elected in 2010.  If anything, all this shows is that this GOP habit os saying:  "wait for the next electin" is STUPID.  Maybe the GOP should actualy FIGHT on SPENDING.  The House MUST vote to spend EVERY DIME that the government spends.  Regardless, it is insane to suggest that the GOP should "cave" on TAXES, IMMIGRRATIN, SPENDING, and EVERYTHING ELSE, jsut because they barely lost a Presidential electin.  Again, what were THEY elected to do?  Deadlock and status quo, is the only logical result to this elecitn, as everything remains the SAME as it was after the 2010 electins. 

P.S. On proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).

No comments: