McCain ad: “God’s Children”
posted at 9:15 am on July 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
Team McCain has its latest ad out today, taken from a New Hampshire debate in June 2007, when John McCain soliloquized on the contributions of Hispanic citizens and residents to our efforts in Vietnam and Iraq. Titled “God’s Children”, the ad matches imagery to McCain’s impromptu salute:
My friends, I want you the next time you’re down in Washington, D.C., to go to the Vietnam War Memorial and look at the names engraved in black granite. You’ll find a whole lot of Hispanic names.
When you go to Iraq or Afghanistan today, you’re going to see a whole lot of people who are of Hispanic background. You’re even going to meet some of the few thousand that are still green card holders who are not even citizens of this country, who love this country so much that they’re willing to risk their lives in its service in order to accelerate their path to citizenship and enjoy the bountiful, blessed nation.
So let’s from time to time remember that these are God’s children. They must come into country legally, but they have enriched our culture and our nation as every generation of immigrants before them.
Thank you.
About the best that can be said for this clip is that it was much more effective in context than it is here. During the debate, the other candidates had described illegal immigrants as not much more than a plague upon the land. This response came spontaneously from McCain, defending the contributions of Hispanics in the US as a reminder to Republicans to keep the rhetoric from getting overheated.
Now, though, this ad sounds like a non-sequitur. He and Barack Obama are close in policy on immigration, to the point where conservatives have resigned themselves not to bring it up if McCain won’t. Unfortunately, this sounds now like a deliberate provocation to the Right, who in fairness have never — never — discounted the contributions of Hispanic citizens and legal residents, especially not their long history of service to this nation. The issue is illegal immigration and border security, not whether we know that Americans of Hispanic descent have risked and given their lives for us.
This is a monumentally stupid ad. It spends a full minute saying nothing about the issue it supposedly addresses, and it insults the intelligence of the people whom McCain is trying to woo. And I’m someone who has a little more sympathy for McCain’s efforts on immigration than most on the Right. Take two big steps backward, Senator McCain.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
Insufficient data. The number of voters should be greater than the number of candidates. Make up another score or so voters.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 1:26 PM
I think “runoff” is a fitting word for this election.
BigD on July 11, 2008 at 1:27 PM
So what, this is an ad targeting a constituency McCain needs to win at the expense of no one except the lunatics who want to see a Golden Shower Curtain built on the Mexican border.
A 2,000 mile, unnecessary, ridiculously expensive idiotic endeavor that is directly contrary to everything this country stands for and whose supporters are some of the avid fans of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party in the country.
NoDonkey on July 11, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Wise_man just lost all of his McCain points!
james23 on July 11, 2008 at 1:28 PM
No one, but you can get rid of E and G.
Then you’d ask those three people again, who do you chose out of: A, B, C, D and F?
D would be one of the leading candidates as would B. The rest would be somewhere in the middle, but that’s why you’d vote again unless I’m mistaken on the proposed solution.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 1:31 PM
I was skewered by some radicals for stating what Sowell and Reagan had both said, that we (Republicans) squandered our chance in the 60’s to recapture the black vote. Instead we let the Dems put the nail in the coffin.
Now we have a chance to not repeat that mistake. The fact is, the Mexicans are here, we need to figure a way to integrate the productive ones and remove the “bad ones. Secure the borders, and put in place a system that works.
The largest rising middle class in America, is the Mexicans, if we “blow them off” a conservative will never win another national election.
Even the conservative savior, Reagan, recognized this, which is why he proposed a path to citizenship for these illegal immigrants. If we instituted his plan today, and actually applied it, it would be a benefit to all of us.
If I am wrong, then Reagan was wrong…I am in good company.
right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 1:32 PM
WTF?
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 1:32 PM
I believe flenser stated it wouldn’t involve a re-vote. Also is your result from adding preference numbers, or what method did you use? Just curious and trying to point out how cumbersome this system seems. Will voters follow multiple candidates and weigh them or is it all just luck of the draw?
Limerick on July 11, 2008 at 1:34 PM
The point is that we tried and instead got exponentially more illegals in this country, not more.
Even Reagan wouldn’t have been happy if he’d known it would turn out this way.
And you don’t pander to Mexicans and get their vote by acting as though Americans need to be reminded that they’re people to.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 1:35 PM
I just looked at what votes each candidate got.
G was picked seventh, sixth and fifth, so that person doesn’t have a chance. E only faired a little better getting a fourth instead of a seventh, but the same is true for that one.
F was close to being booted, but that one at least is the favorite among one voter (or a third of the voters if each voter represents a large group), which should be enough to keep F in.
B and C weren’t the favorites of any group but were at least second and third to two groups.
The other two were not only the top choice for one group but also in the top three for another group.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Can’t this guy just name a vice pres. then shut the hell up.
I have never seen a contest between two such duffesses intent on blowing their own foot off. This will be won by the moron that does the least damage to himself.
Shut the hell up John.
dhunter on July 11, 2008 at 1:40 PM
I love this ad…i don’t see anything wrong with it. If he wants to target this ad to hispanics, then he should do it. All of you should get over urselves…or rather, why don’t u just vote for Obama.
Talk about ‘whining’…
Chudi on July 11, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Flesner wrote:
In that scenario we have several who didn’t receive a single first choice vote.
Even going further:
Seems simple enough. Maybe.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 1:41 PM
As a rabid lurker around here, to be honest, I don’t care if someone is purple with pink stripes, and can flatulate the complete works of Sousa, as long as they follow the legal method of entering our country and becoming a citizen.
It is when you have large numbers of any nationality that are flouting our laws, and subverting the legal process to become a citizen, that there is an issue. It does not matter what race or nationality they are. It just so happens that the vast majority of illegals entering the country currently are of Hispanic descent. The Hispanics I have known are fine people. I served with a few in the army that were working towards becoming US citizens, and were serving with honor and distinction.
My honest belief is that as long as you continue to pander to racial and ethnic stereotypes, they will continue to exist. Hence my dislike of any type of pandering to any group based solely upon their racial or ethnic heritage.
coyoterex on July 11, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Thanks for explaining how you came up with the results. I’ll try to make a better sample example next time. Just wanted to see how such a ‘voting’ system worked.
Limerick on July 11, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Not sure what you mean. The original SS promises were sustainable.
As for fixes, those are easy to come up with. Change the retirement age to 75, or whatever number brings things back into balance.
As you alluded to earlier, the problem is the proportion of workers to the number of SS consumers. But that can be tackled from either end. The current problem is not really a shortage of young workers, it’s an excess of retired people who live a long time and to who the government has promised to much money.
If the system functioned in a similar fashion to the time of its inception there would be a far fewer people using it and those few would be getting less money.
Change the retirement age and index it to that of the median lifespan. That’s the proper solution here.
If we could magically create another twenty million high wage young American workers, that would not solve the problem. The politicians would simply see that as giving them room to buy more votes by ramping up SS payments to more people.
There will never and can never be enough money coming in to balance what the state will want to spend.
If anything, it’s “for the children” that we need to screw up a little courage and not kick this can down the road for them to deal with.
And as I pointed out, the supposed solution is not one. It assumes that the Mestizo workers of the future will be functionally identical to those of the present. They won’t be.
Of course that brings us back to the core liberal fallacy – that people are fungible.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 1:42 PM
I think a good way to see how it would work is to look at the straw polls that were out long before the primaries even started.
In many of those you would right your first choice, then write who you’d be OK with.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Flenser mentioned this the other day as well. At that time, he stated it would be a one-time vote, although the tabulations happen repeatedly until someone emerges as winner. The “winner” isn’t necessarily anyone’s first choice. The point was to allow the possibility of 3rd party candidates to win.
I can’t work it all out in my head, but I don’t absolutely see why an actual second vote (such as they have in France) would corrupt Flenser’s idea.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Labels are a Democrat thing. And BTW, those are AMERICAN names on the VN Memorial, race is inconsequential to the discussion and McCain’s pandering is disgusting.
And while on the subject, there is a huge difference between negative comments about illegal aliens, criminals really, and comments about Hispanics. You are the one that suggests all Hispanics are illegal. If you look closely at the “negative posts” I suspect you will see it is the criminals not the race that is being discussed.
highhopes on July 11, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Reagan’s 1986 reform act coupled a limited amnesty with tough sanctions on employers who hire illegal aliens. As is typical with such laws, the easy part was accomplished and the hard part wasn’t. My husband was a law clerk with the immigration law judge in San Diego in the late 1980s, and they didn’t have very many cases even though the problem was already bad there and some neighborhoods were in an uproare over being overrun with illegals. This was almost 20 years ago.
We also have the California Supreme Court to thank for the mess. When it overruled the clear will of the people by invalidating Proposition 187 in 1995, the floodgates were opened. The Mexicans all understood instantly that public benefits, including free schooling for their kids, would not be denied to them. If that proposition had stood, I think the flow of illegals would have slowed to a trickle as every other state would have moved to deny state benefits to illegals.
rockmom on July 11, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Similar to the French system, they had I think a dozen presidential candidates.
Other countries, maybe Italy, do the same thing, chaos is what it causes.
Eventually you have run-offs, then you have maybe six (or more) different lobbying parties in the senate fighting for their piece of the pie.
Our system is simple, have a better candidate then the two, put him up there. That’s what the Green and the Libertarian parties do.
Isn’t there a difference between Zel Miller and Kennedy? The two party system is not always two parties.
right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 1:47 PM
That was not Reagans reasoning. And if it was, it was really bad reasoning. Reagan did what you think we should do – give US citizenship and amnesty to Hispanic illegals.
What reward did the Republican Party reap from that action? None whatsoever. Because people don’t vote on that basis.
So why do people think that this time it will work?
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Right on!
Branch Rickey on July 11, 2008 at 1:47 PM
I don’t either, though maybe flesner can explain.
I’d like to see an idea like that implemented. Have all of the GOP vote on the same day, and if no winner is found (no one with over 50%), then eliminate those who couldn’t make it to the double digits, give the candidates a month, maybe more, then have another vote and repeat as necessary.
Seems like we’d actually get the true opinion of the GOP that way.
Really though, I’d even just settle for being able to vote all at once. Not getting the chance to vote for the candidate of my choice by the time it came to Texas made it all seem very pointless.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 1:49 PM
The problem with schizophrenia is, that the sufferer knows not that he has it.
The other problem is, he doesn’t know how to prioritize…Therefore ALL choices are “bad”
This blog, and it’s commenters, are becoming the epitome of a schizophrenic.
franksalterego on July 11, 2008 at 1:49 PM
I agree, I had dozens of Mexicans workers who were tax paying home owners who became “legal”, and they were ever so grateful to Reagan. The plan was a good one, not only Ca. backed out, but also the Dem. senate backed away from their promises.
right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 1:50 PM
It won’t.
It’s not cumbersome. Just walk into the voting booth and mark the candidates in order of preference. I’m sure every person here could manage that.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 1:50 PM
What was the 2000 election. The Florida Supreme Court made a mockery of themselves .
Run-offs also helped us get Wyche Fowler out of the Senate from GA in 1992 – of course, the incumbents (mostly a democrat legislature then) made it only a plurality instead of a majority. Pathetic – the legislature; not you.
I know you think I am trying to antagonize you but I cannot make sense at of my of your posts and have tried to have you help me out with your reasoning but instead you spew McCain talking points and if you are trying to help him win a vote; you are not.
Branch Rickey on July 11, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Not similar to the Italian system at all. That is a parliamentary system.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Not true. My uncle knows full well what he has even when he’s off his meds. He just doesn’t like how he feels when he’s on them.
I don’t appreciate you making light of the suffering these people endure. It’s tragic, especially how it affects those who previously led completely normal lives.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 1:54 PM
I meant that eligibility at 65 or earlier, with built in COLA, couldn’t be sustained because of changing life expectancies.
I’m with you on the rest. Cut and delay benefit. I think even a change to 70 would make a huge difference. (Also, might be the best time to let the youngest opt out, and/or private accts.) Only with substantial changes to SS and Medicaire, and a willingness to see the standard of living of seniors go down (OK with me, they’re among the richest in America now– and seniors aren’t worth as much to the economy), can we reduce the numbers of add’l workers we need.
My family would prob. have been formerly considered one of the mongrol races, so I just can’t join you here. That being said, I see no reason not to open up our immigration system wide to those who may now wish to flee Europe.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Oh, oh, oh…Spare me the melodrama.
franksalterego on July 11, 2008 at 1:55 PM
You don’t know what you’re talking about. How about I just leave it at that.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Flenser is correct, insofar at the vote for Pres. is concerned. Where it might fail and produce chaos is when the presidential winner has no supporters in Congress.
I’ll have to think about this. This may not work.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2008 at 1:59 PM
“The debate is over.”
heh,heh,heh
franksalterego on July 11, 2008 at 2:00 PM
No, the winner must be the winner of a significant number of first choice votes. Otherwise he gets eliminated right away.
As I understand the French system, it would not. The only problem there is how slow and cumbersome and expensive the process becomes.
Imagine using the French system in the latest GOP primary. You’d end up have six seperate votes in each state, probably several weeks apart. My proposal eliminates that problem. There is only one election, regardless of the number of candidates on the ballot.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Looks like the figures showed that Reagan’s reaching out to the Hispanics did work.
His pathway to citizenship (it was never called amnesty except by his opponents), was well received. And if continued to be implemented the % would have continued to increase.
The American people don’t like illegal immigrants, but they also don’t like the idea of people being hunted down. Catch a speeder, no problem, catch him and beat him…riots.
That is why it is best to find a way (like Reagan did) that is legal, humanitarian, effective, and provides us with benefits.
If you think Reagan was nuts, fine, I think he had the right idea. Compassionate conservative, with standards for people to strive for.
right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Just about impossible. By definition the man elected President, especially under my system, is pretty popular. Maybe you mean “no people of the same party”. That’s a different matter, but I’d like to see the importance of political parties diminished.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Correct. Sorry.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Only problem there, is that the Paulbots came out in force for many of those straw polls, totally skewing the results.
JetBoy on July 11, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Have I pointed out lately that you are a pathological liar?
Source?
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Will you be commenting next week after his speech to La Raza? Last I looked, they didn’t seem too interested in assimilation. Oh, and would you give us your opinion on how Juan Hernandez’s position on open borders restricts McCain’s pander to just legals?
a capella on July 11, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Honey, you all ready pulled that bait and switch on me…you asked a legitimate question, and when I answered civilly you took it to the gutter. As I said then; fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Maybe this is your problem.
right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Yes, again right. I thought you might like the idea! I was actually responding to the notion that since they may not match in party, the type of coalition voting you see in Parliaments would actually occur here. That may be a good or a bad thing, but it would be different, and I don’t know what to think about it.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2008 at 2:07 PM
If you that getting creamed by the Democrats among Hispanics is a good thing, then sure.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Heh!
Branch Rickey on July 11, 2008 at 2:10 PM
The world we live in, is not the world that we want it be…It never was…It never will be.
It’s a parallel universe.
Schizophrenics live in a parallel universe.
Are you a schizophrenic?
franksalterego on July 11, 2008 at 2:10 PM
http://www.redcounty.com/national/2008/06/the-latino-vote-presidential-e/
Stats for Latino vote
right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Geez, girl, calm down. All the stereotypes you have about Latins is spewing all over the place. Like I said, you assume way too much. Man, you’re really angry that my mom came over in the ’70s illegally. She got deported, the system worked! Dad, fortunately, was legal the whole time and became a US Citizen, which is why he was able to go to mom’s country, marry her and bring her back. Not sure how marrying someone is “line-jumping.” Seriously, if you’re overweight, you’re going to give yourself a heart attacking thinking about my mom. By the way, she became a US Citizen two years ago! She was so happy to have voted for Hillary. She’s voting for McCain this time around. I’m happy for her, and I’m glad you are too. Viva McCain!
jtorres138 on July 11, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Honestly, I can’t tell if you are trying to contradict yourself in some of your posts; or if you have my typing skills (which is minimal- mine) and a word gets missed or something; or if you are just not that bright.
Branch Rickey on July 11, 2008 at 2:13 PM
franksalterego makes Gilda seem like a valuable and insightful commenter.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Um, are you a licensed M.D. and will my HIPPA rights be protected if I turn some posters in to you?
>;-D
Branch Rickey on July 11, 2008 at 2:15 PM
ROFL!!!
Branch Rickey on July 11, 2008 at 2:16 PM
You seem fixated on mental health. Isn’t the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results? We’ve been down the amnesty road before.
a capella on July 11, 2008 at 2:18 PM
You think what Reagan did (his pathway to citizenship) was not worthy, I think it changed the perception. You don’t think moving from 15% to 37% is a good trend, I think it is.
A difference of opinion.
right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Yes,
I’m fully licensed by the USDA, the BofA, NASCAR, and NHRA.
is there a problem?
franksalterego on July 11, 2008 at 2:19 PM
That’s not even funny dude. ;)
Branch Rickey on July 11, 2008 at 2:20 PM
So there would patient – doctor privlidge to talk about a few of the posters here
:-D
Branch Rickey on July 11, 2008 at 2:21 PM
I don’t think that Hector is the most reliable and impartial source of info on this. For instance, I notice that he got W’s number wrong. And the data he ommitted changes things considerably.
We’re meant to think that before Reagan the GOP only managed 15%. If you knew that Nixon got 35% of the Latino vote it changes things considerably.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Reality and actual, unfiltered data is confusing to “notrightandnotsobright2″
Just a humble observation.
Branch Rickey on July 11, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Maybe we just resent McCain being the consumate panderer in the name of the Republican Party. Maybe we don’t like being treated like we need reminding that all Americans aren’t English. Maybe we are afraid that the weakest candidate ever fielded by the Dems could win because of crossover voting by Dems in the Republican primary.
Weasel indeed. Up yours.
Akzed on July 11, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Oh no…I’m not that kind of “doctor”
I’m the person, who tells you, “yo’ mama dresses you funny,” whenever your mother dresses you funny.
franksalterego on July 11, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Some real numbers.
1972: Richard Nixon received 35% of the Latino vote
1976: Gerald Ford received 15% of the Latino vote
1980: Ronald Reagan received 30% of the Latino vote
1984: Ronald Reagan received 37% of the Latino vote
1988: George H. Bush received 33% of the Latino vote
1992: George H. Bush received 25% of the Latino vote
1996: Bob Dole received 21% of the Latino vote
2000: George W. Bush received 35% of the Latino vote
2004: George W. Bush received 38% of the Latino vote
Looks to me like the GOP has been getting about one third of the Latino vote for almost half a century now. There is no upward trend. McCain will get less than 40% of the Latino vote, unless he announces the next New Deal/Great Society program.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 2:30 PM
I don’t think you have a clue what you are talking about.
Incidentally, Reagan signed the amnesty bill in 1996. Those Latino voters must have had clairvoyant powers if they voted for him in 1980 and 1984 on that basis. But you have never struck me as one to allow the facts to interfere with your prefered narrative.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Should be “1986″ of course.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 2:37 PM
“THEY MUST COME INTO THIS COUNTRY LEGALLY.”
Readers, quit the kneejerks in the general direction of LEGAL ENTRANCE and speedy processing of legally entered green card holding immigrants towards citizenship.
Listen not to what you are angry about, but what you actually have in common with McCain’s message. Get past the 6/5 NH Republican Convention timing with the “My Friends” and “God’s Children”. What is offensive is that people have reached the point of rejecting those words, regardless of the specific contextual content.
Morons, it is not “apologizing” as the ad contained no talk of amnesty for illegal aliens.
McCain’s impromptu delivery was actually spot on. Everyone of us has pride in our armed forces and gratitude for the devotion that each trooper has for our Constitution and our Country. Hats off, gentlemen. Well said, McCain.
TEAM McCAIN ‘08!
Commander in Chief, Chief Executive and Final Arbiter of his Cabinet that will consist of our nation’s FINEST minds ready to serve America and preserve our Constitution; God willing!
maverick muse on July 11, 2008 at 2:37 PM
McCain has not displayed a lot of respect for America or it’s Constitution so far. I don’t see that changing.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 2:40 PM
True. A better example would be a non Internet straw poll or one that wasn’t hacked.
What debate?
You made factually ignorant assumptions, didn’t back them up, then proceeded to act like a child.
If you’ve got facts, go ahead. I’m not afraid of a challenge from you. I’ve lived with the disease and seen what it does to people first hand despite being spared the worst of it from my parents.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 2:41 PM
I think I finally figured out what is really bothering me about this add… took a bit…
He’s playing into the Dem playbook of Identity politics. He is specificly going after one RACES votes.
He does not point out all the names on the wall, and point out the inclusivness of the names there, but just points out the Hispanic names…
Its a Conservative ideal that we are all AMERICANS, that individuals vote, not groups… but this plays right into the Dem worldview of Hyphenated Americans.
Romeo13 on July 11, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Morons?
Try a mirror.
McCain has NEVER talked about amnesty and considers it a smear to the bill that almost passed a year ago.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 2:44 PM
i’d just like to point out that you already see this sort of coalition voting in Congress. Both parties are coalitions of different interests. And you also see cross party coalitions come together all the time. For example, the recent FISA bill.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Are you absolutely sure?
franksalterego on July 11, 2008 at 2:50 PM
You just don’t get it. The problem is not with hispanics, it is with rewarding the cheating, lying, and stealing illegal immigration is the product of. You are blind if you can’t figure that out. I am as pro hispanic legal immigration as McCain is. However, demonstrating to these people that crime pays is a very very bad idea. McCain knows that, but is blatently pandering to hispanics anxiety.
If you continue to follow the bouncing ball, we will wind up with a huge percentage of the voting public who sincerely believe that cheating, lying, and stealing is the best way to accomplish your goals, and will vote accordingly.
It is a prescription for disaster.
saiga on July 11, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Don’t feed it, Esthier. These things thrive on attention.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Sure. It’s a rerun of their reaction of the public rejection of shamnesty. Put it in a racial context. There are also immigrants from other nonHispanic countries in our military, but recognizing them won’t get La Raza all warm and moist for next week’s speech.
a capella on July 11, 2008 at 2:53 PM
You’re right. It’s not worth it.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 2:56 PM
should be reaction to
a capella on July 11, 2008 at 2:57 PM
uh-oh…A coalition is forming.
franksalterego on July 11, 2008 at 2:57 PM
But note that Bush and Reagan were very pro Latino notice (Dole who was not noted as wooing the Hispanic market), as is McCain. One major slip and the 30% (of a rising market) slips to single digits. That is the trend you don’t want.
Remember this is a minority, subject to the “give-a-aways” of the Dems, to hold this is great against the programs the Dems create. Bush has been shot at for his cozying up to the Mexicans, but look what the result is…38%.
Your figures shore up my theory, thanks.
Adding Nixon helped, he was very popular in California, and that state had the highest concentration of Mexicans. Of course Cubans had a major impact on the vote that year for obvious reasons, they voted in mass for Nixon (and Nixon’s Southern Coalition was genius)…once again showing how important it is too reach out to the minorities.
(btw, Hector was not using the figures to convince, but to show a trend, a trend that could go away quickly, figures are accurate depending on what source)
Even then, twenty five years ago, President Nixon was emphasizing the importance of the Hispanic vote.
Thanks, for showing how important it is to make sure we don’t lose the Latino vote.
right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 2:59 PM
I believe that children are the future…
The Race Card on July 11, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Didn’t we almost have it all…
The Race Card on July 11, 2008 at 3:00 PM
thats for sure!
right4life on July 11, 2008 at 3:05 PM
It doesn’t show how important the Latino vote is, not without stating how many vote and how much a percentage of the population they make up.
The truth is that we’re talking about a very small minority, one that can only sway a close election. Does anyone believe this year’s will be close?
I thought your theory was that Republicans gained a significant Latino voter population because of Reagan’s plan? The stats don’t prove that.
The stats show that since Nixon we’ve been averaging over 30% and have only gone above that with the Republican presidents who got a significant popular vote anyway.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Meanwhile,
The schizophrenics in this thread, can’t figure out who to support.
franksalterego on July 11, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Candidates should take pictures wearing a sombrero, eating a hebrew-national hot dog, drinking some Irish whiskey, sporting a flag pin, with a gay friend, while listening to jazz, surrounded by the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders, signing an autograph for a soldier, using recycled paper.
Anybody left out?
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Oh God, My parents are Cuban and are infuriated by illegal immigration. They came here through legally and were blacklisted in Cuba for over a year before they can leave the island. The people that take the shortcuts are breaking the law. Sure there should be exceptions for those that serve the military, but that does not make it right.
McCain seems to think that illegals are the only children of God. What about the children of God that follow the rules and are desperately waiting until they are clear to come?
jencab on July 11, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Hey, take it easy, so far I have not attacked you, but you have called me pathological liar, fact ignorer, calm down. Regan did not just pop out and propose his bill, he was coddling up to the Latino vote for years (do a little research), as was Nixon. They knew the impact of the Latino in the future, and recognized the errors regarding the Blacks in the past. You don’t need to be clairvoyant to know that someone cares about you, that they will be supporting you. Reagan touched people with his sincerity…try it.
So if you feel Reagan was not trying to win the Latino vote…say it, don’t couch it with “But you have never struck me as one to allow the facts to interfere with your prefered narrative”.
If you think the fact that Reagan, and Bush and Nixon were and are not concerned with the Latino vote then say it. If you do believe they were, then you and I agree.
You sound like you are arguing with a point you agree with.
right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 3:12 PM
When I’m King, I give those serving in the military two votes.
JiangxiDad on July 11, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Of course. :)
Muslims, Mormons, French, Germans, the handicapped… I’m sure there are more, but I’m starting to draw blanks.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 3:13 PM
As usual, you completely misread the data to get the result you want. The reality is that the Hispanic vote fluctuates up and down with the popular vote. When the Republican candidate is getting hammered in the popular vote, his share of the Hispanic votes goes down also. When the Republican candidate is doing well his share of the Hispanic vote goes up, but only from terrible to bad.
There were no single digits listed, but that’s about normal for your level of reading comprehension.
As I showed, there is no trend. He was using selected figures to give the false impression of a trend.
In 1968 Nixon got about 11% of the Latino vote. I guess he wasn’t that popular.
So the result of Bush’s give-away is that he gets clobberd among Latino voters by John Kerry, a generic Democrat with no history of pandering to Latinos. Why do you think that this is encouraging?
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 3:15 PM
I’d support a system that requires you to earn your vote, either through military service or some other form of service to the military.
Esthier on July 11, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Wow, so now those of us who don’t support McCain not only have MDS, which is apparently a slight mental derangment, but are schizophernic as well?
When you call your opponents CRAZY, do you really think it will help in the debate?
Romeo13 on July 11, 2008 at 3:16 PM
It shows if the Republicans do not take care of the Latino vote it disappears, as between Nixon and Reagan. See the change? 35 to 15 back to 30,37.
The general point I am making is this:
McCain needs to take care of the Latino vote, or it disappears. And the Latino vote is the fastest growing voting segment in the U.S. And it will continue to grow. We do not want to repeat the history of losing the Black vote. If we lose the Latino vote, a conservative may never win another national election.
right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Well, that just invites the question,
What were you doing, during your civics lessons?
franksalterego on July 11, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Yep, I always liked Heinlein’s idea in Starship Troopers.
Romeo13 on July 11, 2008 at 3:20 PM
May need to work a little BLT in there just to be sure. Plus the Native Americans, but they’re a small voting bloc so probably can just forget them. Remember, this isn’t about fair,..this is about trying to get elected.
As I see the historical stats provided here, it looks like McCain is pissing off law and order conservatives by pandering to a group which won’t yield him any more of their votes than the GOP has gotten from them in the past. Is that about right?
a capella on July 11, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Yeah, rather just loose the conservative vote…
Romeo13 on July 11, 2008 at 3:23 PM
You are a pathological liar. Scan up through the thread and you are accusing me of calling Reagan a nut. You do this sort of thing a lot.
As I say, you are a pathological liar. (And in this instance, you base your lies on ten seconds worth of googling.)
There is no “impact in the future” if we don’t persist in trying to turn the US into a Latin American country. You are saying that we need to have amnesty in order to win the votes of people who won’t have the vote if we don’t give them amnesty!
This is logically nonsensical and factually false. If you want the Hispanic vote, be prepared to buy it. You won’t get it simply by giving amnesty. That did not work when Reagan did it and it won’t work today.
Can you spell out for me what exactly you think were the errors regarding blacks in the past, and how it has any bearing on this matter?
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 3:24 PM
That’s what the historical data and current polling is telling us, yes. No Republican can pander better than a Democrat. Not even McCain.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 3:26 PM
I’d love to hear some explaination of how we “lost” the black vote.
flenser on July 11, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »