Sunday, March 12, 2006

Barnes v. Buchanan

This silly Fred Barnes article cries out for the Sailer treatment for its absurd statements about the value of the Hispanic vote to the Republican party. Barnes is concerned that an outbreak of paleoconservatism is endangering Republican rule. His evidence is the failed Dubai ports deal and the belated attempts of congressional Republicans to control illegal immigration. But these issues have far broader appeal than the mailing lists of Chronicles and The American Conservative.

What really upsets Barnes is criticism of his heartthrob. Paleos:
Attack Bush on issue after issue. This weakens the Republican base and, potentially at least, reduces voter turnout. Republican voters dismiss criticism by Democrats or the media, but they pay attention when other Republicans zing Bush, or when they attack congressional Republicans, for that matter.

What delusional drivel. Republican rule isn't threatened by the years of cynicism, corruption and incompetence. It's Pat Buchanan's Fault.


Anonymous said...

Right. Barnes also uses the suspect 44% number (Bush's alleged share of the Hispanic vote in 2004), when, as Steve Sailer showed and the MSM later picked up on, it was more like 40%.

Barnes uses this "trend" (35% of the Hispanic vote for Bush in 2000, 40% in 2004) as evidence that Republicans can eventually pick up a majority of Hispanic votes, but two points speak against that: 1) It's not clear how much of this Hispanic support is Bush-specific (cowboy image, from Texas, etc.) and how much will transfer to other Republican candidates, and 2) If the only way the Republican Party can even have a long shot at winning a majority of the Hispanic vote is to give up any meaningful controls on immigration and any meaningful controls on government spending, is that worth it? Selling principles for power doesn't usually work out real well.

Joe Populist said...

Actually, subtract out the Cuban and Spanish/European "Hispanic" Vote, and Bush got far far less then 40% of the vote. Shees..the extreme left a la the Unions and the ACLU, are all out in support of enabling unrestrained immigration. Why? Simple...they see the immigrants as a permanent underclass that they can exploit. The jobs in the "new" economy that outsourcing and globalization are creating are not capable of sustaining a "middle class" lifestyle, so this new class will be a permanent constitutency, permanently dependent on subsidized housing and medical care, and will vote Left Democrat for the next 100 years. It's the end of American Democracy. And we have George W. Bush to thank for it. Along with the self centered idiots who form the constituency of Grover Norquist's "Americans for Tax Reform", who formulated the attack on Pat Buchanan as "xenophobic" and "racist". Another equal enemy of the American Democracy is Richard Gilder's "Fund for Growth". These idiots say they are for tax reform, but support unrestrained immigration, so their Country Club constituency can pay low wages to immigrants that the government subsidizes. The enemies are among us, and these people are just as bad as the Hillary Clinton Democrats.