That Steve King ought to learn to keep his mouth shut at times. He is definitely not helping things out.
by Elizabeth Llorente
The Tea Party group that sponsored a prime-time response last week to President Obama’s State of the Union address is the latest group recognizing the power of the Latino vote.
Officials with the Tea Party Express, the nation’s largest Tea Party political action committee, have been discussing their own Latino outreach, said Sal Russo, the group’s co-founder.
“We’ve been trying to do a bus tour that would focus on communities that we don’t normally talk to,” Russo said.
Russo, who worked for Ronald Reagan when he was California governor, said the former president had a rule that any campaigning should include voters who didn’t traditionally pick Republicans
“He believed in going to labor unions, going to places where you don’t normally go, so people could hear his message about cutting taxes and growing the economy,” he said.
Officials of Tea Party groups — national and smaller, local ones — like to point out these days that some of the nation’s most prominent Latino politicians, including U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, of Florida, and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, of Texas, were Tea Party candidates
[.....]
On Feb 11, the House Republican Conference, which essentially represents the chamber’s GOP, launched a Spanish-language Twitter account, @gopespanol.
The account is part of a broader plan – still being hashed out – to reach out to Hispanics, and repair their image with them.
“It’s a recognition that we, as Republicans, did not do as well as we hoped in the 2012 elections with a number of groups – with young people, with women, and with Hispanics,” said Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who is chairperson of the conference and was the House GOP liaison to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.
Not all Republicans and conservatives are on board with the efforts to court Latinos, particularly when it involves relying on Spanish.
Some the most conservative Republicans in the House, for instance, see it as pandering.
In an interview with the National Journal, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said he is opposed to trying to reach out to Latinos in Spanish.
“There’s a conflicting message that comes out from the Republicans if we want to recognize the unifying power of English, and meanwhile, we send out communications in multiple languages,” said King, who has one of the most hard-line approaches to immigration. “Official business and documents needs to be in English.”
The 2012 presidential elections, and the critical role that Latinos played in the victory of President Barack Obama, led to soul-searching on the part of many Republicans.
[.......]
During the GOP primaries, Romney wooed the party’s right by echoing their tough rhetoric on immigration and advocating “self-deportation” — making life in the U.S. so miserable for undocumented immigrants they would voluntarily return home. His campaign staff later said they regretted the sharp turn because it alienated minority voters.
Tea Party members say Latinos, and other minorities, are as critical to their future as the Republicans are finding they are to the future of their party.
“The bus tour is the iconic symbol of the Tea Party,” Russo said. “When we’ve gone to some states, like Texas, we’ve had good Hispanic participation. We’re trying to do a [national] bus tour that would be more directed that way.”
[.......]
In Tallahassee, Fla., the local Tea Party president, Beatriz Maciá, has been sending out notices about Tea Party activities in both Spanish and English.
Republicans who resist the Latino outreach efforts and use of Spanish to achieve it, she said, need to see the larger picture.
“We want to remind them of the successful Republicans who had the big tent, there’s always been room for all of us,” she said.
The House GOP’s Latino outreach, she said, is the right way to go.
“It’s terrific, that they are trying to be as inclusive as they can be,” she said. “Hispanics are closer to Republicans in their principles, their values; faith is an important part of our culture.”
An aggressive courtship of Latinos in Texas in 2010 helped Tea Party candidate Blake Farenthold defeat Democratic incumbent U.S. Rep. Solomon Ortiz, albeit by a razor-thin margin. The defeat of Ortiz in a traditionally Democratic and Latino district was considered a major coup for Tea Party and Republicans.
Tags: Elizabeth Llorente
We do not have to get a majority, just increase significantly our normal votes.
Speranza wrote:
just reverse the womens vote…that alone would have covered the difference
heysoos wrote:
We waste so many opportunities. Btw why did Romney not mention Jon Corzine and the BP Oil Spill during the campaign?
@ Speranza:
Bush did it getting 44%. A competent Republican can. But a real outreach effort, not just to Hispanics, but to Asians, Younger Voters and Single Women will piss off many Republican voters. The Party is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They either adapt and broaden their appeal to win elections or if they try to go this route, they face a revolt from their own voters. I almost feel bad for Republican Party leaders, but they created the mess they are in.
Rodan wrote:
I don’t think the out reach will piss people off if the out reach doesn’t morph into becoming a Dem-lite give away. I welcome all even those I disagree with if the discussion is on the problems and how to solve them without disregarding all my believes!
Rodan wrote:
That is truly sad. Enjoy losing elections after elections praying that the baaaaaase comes out in sufficient numbers. /
@ Speranza:
After all, running away from the base has done so well. Just ask President Romney how well running away from your base works. To win a Presidential election, you bring out you rbase first, and then try to pull from the middle. Obama did this in spades, and he won. Romney did not do that at all. He ran away from the base, especially the most energetic part of the base in the Tea Party. How successful was that?
Speranza wrote:
Enjoy losing elections by telling the baaaaaase to STFU and STFD. I’m sure that is also a winning policy. Who need the damn evil base anyway.///
@ Tanker:
Yep. They serve a s++t sandwich to you for almost four years and then come to you and say “now you vote for this guy because we want you to and what other choice do you have?”
Short memory -- does the election of 2006 ring a bell?
oh, quitcherbitchen. the ‘fiscon base’ hasnt had a president in 25 years now we are broke and are owned by the chinese now thanks to the last 13 years.
talk about being locked out of the party! lets raise the debt some more, just like W did! wooohooo!!!!!!
some ‘family values’, heaping debt on your following generations!
Carolina Girl wrote:
Short memories for sure. I have to say and my wife would agree that I would never want to elect someone as conservative as I am…probably wouldn’t be good, but there sure needs to be a happy medium! Or we really do need to rip the republican party into smaller interest groups!
I really would like someone to lay out this little “l” libertarian platform issue by issue to us that may be open to listening! I can pull up a platform of the Libertarian party issue by issue, but can’t seem to find this elusive little “l” platform!
coldwarrior wrote:
Funny but true! Hey they lowed W. even though he spent like a drunken sailor on leave at Marseilles port.
@ Speranza:
it’s pathetic.
Tanker wrote:
You love doing the either/or routine and I just don’t buy it. What does your base stand for? You want to ban abortion -- ain’t gonna happen. The so called base has been writing the GOP platform for years. Barry Goldwater warned about being slavish to the Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell’s and he was right. On personal levels you and I and every one else ought to mind our own business and let people live their lives. People want to know if they will ever be able to retire or will ever work again after four years of unemployment.
coldwarrior wrote:
Because every four years they toss meaningless red meat out to hungry lions yet nothing changes. The last I heard abortion has been legal (and we just passed the 40th anniversary of Roe v. wade).
@ Speranza:
personal liberty.
states rights
“smaller” govt.
taxed
enough
already. TEA party.
@ Speranza:
voodoo economics..coined by our own side!
oh well…going to lunch w mrs coldwarrior. bbl
Poppy Bush broke his “no new taxes ” pledge but hey he was against a TV character (Murphy Brown) having a child out of wedlock. That worked out super duper for us in 1992. We let Pat Buchanan make a rancid “culture war” speech at the convention and have been losing the suburbs for 20 years.
coldwarrior wrote:
“voodoo economics” a term coined by the patron saint of Family Values Mr. Wimp himself. Off to lunch myself.
Speranza wrote:
I don’t want to ban anything, I don’t have to answer for other peoples sins. I just don’t want any portion of my money going to pay for things other people want to do. How do we mind our own business when we are told day after day how we have to run our own business.
Again Gov is the problem with both. Get them out of our lives! We can surly agree on that!
@ Speranza:
Goldwater won how many elections?
Iron Fist wrote:
One thing is for sure. Conservatives (I’m not a republican) will never win an election, mainly because we are hated by more than just the left!
I wish that I could call myself libertarian without people thinking that I voted for Ron Paul and listen to Alex Jones incessantly.
Bumr50 wrote:
Bumr50 wrote:
Bumr50 wrote:
who cares?…you’re probably a nazi racisr anyway
@ Bumr50:
I call myself a constitutional federalist. I get a lot of blank stares, but that’s about it.
a threefer?…never seen that before
@ heysoos:
If I were wearing ruby slippers, maybe I could call myself a libertarian without people thinking that I voted for Ron Paul and listen to Alex Jones incessantly?
Bumr50 wrote:
Unfortunately you will get that until people can understand the differences between the little “l” libertarian and the Ron Paul/Alex Jones Libertarian. Not in just simple terms, but a true evaluation between the two! I’ve asked with true interest, but I usually get some snarky answer!
Bumr50 wrote:
if you’re wearing ruby slippers, they might call you other stuff unrelated
Tanker wrote:
I suppose “I’m not batsh*t crazy, and they are” qualifies as ‘snarky’…
Bumr50 wrote:
Pretty much.
All seriousness though, I really would like to see side by side details!
@ Tanker:
I describe myself as libertarian because I believe in having the smallest government possible necessary to maintain the Republic.
Nuff said.
@ Tanker:
This is a good piece.
I don’t disagree with anything in it.
I’m a ambivalentarian…I can live with a reasonable amt of liberalism, but we are out of control and dysfunctional…and that I put square on the shoulders of liberal zealots
Bumr50 wrote:
THe republican party I joined in 1980 believed the same thing. Today they have no problem with the government getting a little bit bigger.
Bumr50 wrote:
Aside -- I vote Republican, but if it takes explanations like this to wake people up then so be it.
@ heysoos:
I call Liberal Zealots Progressives or fascists.
@ BatGuano:
That is my take on it.
@ Bumr50:
If in 2016 the Republican nominate Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee or Chris Christie, I will vote Libertarian. I will refuse to support any of those Socialist/Staitists.
@ Tanker:
The Ron Paul/ALex Jones Libertarians are really just Rightwing Anarchists. Most people who call themselves Libertarians are just Individualistic live and let live Conservatives.
So there is a huge distinction.
Rodan wrote:
they eat dogs
@ Tanker:
Yup!
Rodan wrote:
I won’t vote at all if anyone of them runs…that’s a load of bad juju there
.@ heysoos:
Those 4 are lovers of an all powerful centralized government.
@ heysoos:
A President Christie is a Leftist’s wet dream.
If I were a Leftist, I’d be rooting for Christie over the Dem candidate.
It would be soul-crushing.
If the Tea Party really wants to do Hispanic outreach, it better change its name to “El Partido de Cafe con Leche.”
BatGuano wrote:
Chris Christie’s waistline being a case in point?
Rodan wrote:
well, I’m not too popular, but I consider Santorum and Bachmann actually dangerous…same threat, different party
@ Bumr50:
Many on the Left claim they would vote for Christie. Do not dismiss the possibility of Christie winning the GOP nod. All he has to do is go hard Right on one Social issue and there will be enough of the base to embrace him. Then Rubio and Rand Paul would split the Conservative/Libertarian vote.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
There is a group called Cafe con Leche Republicans.
Rodan wrote:
Especially with the GOP’s open primaries, aka the Blueprint for Perpetual Defeat.
Rodan wrote:
One good joint and several cups of cafe con leche on SW 8th Street. No better way to kill an afternoon.
@ heysoos:
Santorum is a very dangerous man. He’s a Socialist who hides behind religious rhetoric. He should NOT be taken seriously, but he is and thats what bugs me.
@ heysoos:
Pavlov’s Republicans.
“Abortion.”
“WOOF!!!!!!!!”*drool*
“Gay.”
“WOOF!!!!!!!!”*drool*
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
until that comes to an end, most of this other conversation is about worthless…what message is there when folks are tearing each other to pieces on national tv?
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Yup and many Republcian voters love rhetoric. Christie will pick one issue and go hardcore on it.
Bumr50 wrote:
Chris Christie is anti-abortion and anti Gay Marriage. He will play up those stances to get support. It probably could work too.
@ Bumr50:
I would really like to see people recognize that, to the extent there is a “gay issue,” it is that the gay-rights movement is fundamentally anti-Constitutional. It’s not an issue of who wants to fuck whom.
@ Bumr50:
Nation Building/War
“WOOF!!!!!!!!”*drool*
@ buzzsawmonkey:
It’s not so much the position that they take, it’s the predictable screams of outrage.
The gay agenda is dangerous because it makes some individuals more equal than others under the justice system.
That needs to be communicated.
@ Rodan:
Christie is pro-gun control. That is going to make a lot of difference. That is anathema to the base. He might as well be a Democrat on that issue.
@ Bumr50:
You got it!
@ Iron Fist:
I hope you are right. But I have seen how many times These progressive Republicans pick one issue to rile up the base and win the nomination.
I would not be shock if Christie all of a sudden before he runs, comes out in support of Guns.
@ Rodan:
@ Rodan:
Still waiting on all the foreign aid checks coming in to help us recover from Superstorm Sandy…
Bumr50 wrote:
It is both.
The gay-rights movement is a “human rights” movement, not a civil rights movement. Homosexuals are not denied any civil rights—civil rights being our rights against government intrusion.
The gay-rights movement seeks “human rights”—i.e., special privileges from the government. “Human rights” are utterly antithetical to the Constitutional structure and the concept of liberty.
The gay-rights movement has already half-gutted the First Amendment by creating and popularizing the concept of “hate speech,” which destroys the First Amendment by making it impossible to discuss issues openly. If you try and discuss the gay-rights movement’s agenda, you will be shut down with tantrum cries of “hate speech” instead of being able to address the issues.
The gay-rights movement has further corrupted the First Amendment by falsely equating unpleasant or contradictory speech with physical violence; call out the movement’s political agenda, and you will be accused of “gay-bashing.” “Gay-bashing“—physical assaults on people presumed to be homosexual—has replaced the term “gay-baiting” (a term derived from “red-baiting,” and properly so, since the gay-rights movement has communist origins). “Baiting”—verbal disagreement—has become falsely equated with physical attack.
I will not repeat in depth, unless asked, my prior statements to the effect that the gay-rights movement exists to destroy not only First Amendment protections of free speech, but First Amendment guarantees of freedom of religion; I will merely observe that the modern gay-rights movement was founded upon the principle, and with the objective of, destroying marriage—the very thing the movement now claims it absolutely must have.
@ Bumr50:
Before George W. Bush, Republicans used to be against Nation Building and wars for Democracy. Now its part of the Conservative ideology. I laugh at how these Republicans who claim to be against Islamic terror, wants to help Al-Qaeda in Syria and support the Muslim Brotherhood.
I do not take the Republicans serious on foreign policy. All they care about is Democracy in the Islamic world, not defending America’s interests.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
“Human rights” are for globalists.
I have no time for them.
Rodan wrote:
I tend to disagree you here. The “base” if there really is such a thing tend to be informed voters. So much out there on Christie that’s assures he get little support from the so called base. I see much more support for him from the moderates and fence fuckers than from the base. As stated above, until the open primary is fixed, we can continue to piss each other off here and it really means nothing!
Rodan wrote:
nor do I…killing terrorists is one thing, developing a democracy quite another and in fact is non of our affair…we should have left Astan when we knew OBL had fled…go home, have a beer
Bumr50 wrote:
“Human rights,” as I have observed before, are the cheap imitation of/substitute for liberty. If you have liberty, protected by the rule of law and civil rights against the government, you don’t need “human rights.” Liberty, and civil rights under law, are what the Constitution is designed to protect.
“Human rights” are indulgences granted by the government to a subjugated populace—a little less press suppression, please; a little less torture; maybe a touch more economic freedom. They are government indulgences, and what the government giveth the government may take away—or award to only its favored subjects and not its disfavored ones.
That is what the gay-rights movement is—and that is why it is an evil which must be fought tooth and nail, not because its adherents are tacky or vulgar or engage in icky sex.
New Thread.
@ Tanker:
I hope you are right. Its just I have seen Bush, McCain and Romney play the trick.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
I’m not looking forward to the largest president since Taft: certainly not this one. Although I’m against judging candidates based on physical attributes, his girth does show a lack of discipline and some laziness.
Politically I can’t get behind a republican presidential candidate (although there is plenty of room back there) who plants a big wet sloppy kiss on a socialist president.
BatGuano wrote:
Omigod! You’re a girther!
////
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
I am sitting here beside myself laughing.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
And yes, I will use that and claim authorship.
@ BatGuano:
Well honey, if you’re gonna steal, steal from the BEST!!
Carolina Girl wrote:
Indeed I do!
Taft who was something like 315 lbs later became a Supreme Court judge giving new meaning to the term “weight of opinion”.
Speranza wrote:
(rim shot) well earned.
Iron Fist wrote:
reagan 1980 was the culmination of the goldwater movement.
Reagan reflected many of the principles of Goldwater’s earlier run in his campaign. Washington Post columnist George Will took note of this, writing, “We…who voted for him in 1964 believe he won, it just took 16 years to count the votes.”[142]
THAT will be the last time america had a real president.
THAT was the last time a Republican won big as President
Sheer delusion. Hispanic values are as Hispanics do, which is much the same as blacks, who are big-time anti-Republicans, do.