Michael Tanner says it like it is

[ElNono]

Great read, IMO. Pretty much agrees with what I was saying last night.

No Good Excuses (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/332857/no-good-excuses-michael-tanner)


So what went wrong? First, demographics. This election is testimony to the fact that Republicans cannot survive by being the party of old white men.

...

Republicans must face up to the fact that their hard-line stance on immigration is disqualifying their candidates with Hispanics. Whereas George W. Bush once carried 44 percent of the Latino vote, Mitt Romney couldn’t crack 35 percent. To see why Romney appears to have essentially tied in Florida, for example, just look to Obama’s margin among non-Cuban Hispanics. Similarly, the growing Hispanic vote clearly cost Romney both Nevada and Colorado.

...

Second, social issues continue to hurt Republicans with women, young voters, and suburbanites. The problem is not just a matter of their stance on the issues, but their tone. It’s not just that Republicans oppose abortion or gay marriage, but that they often sound intolerant and self-righteous in doing so. Romney himself may not have put much emphasis on social issues, but the Republican brand was too easily associated with the words of Todd Akin.

[coyotes_geek]

Just another example of liberal media bias!

[LnGrrrR]

Agreed El. One of the few who can seemingly articulate the issues surrounding R's today.

[CosmicCowboy]

Agreed El. One of the few who can seemingly articulate the issues surrounding R's today.

I thought I did a pretty good job months ago.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202651&highlight=open+letter+to+the+rnc

[coyotes_geek]

I thought I did a pretty good job months ago.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202651&highlight=open+letter+to+the+rnc

I thought you did too. :tu

[ElNono]

I thought I did a pretty good job months ago.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202651&highlight=open+letter+to+the+rnc

you certainly did

[JoeChalupa]

Joe Scarborough has been saying the same thing for years now.

[HI-FI]

so for El Nono or CosmicCowboy, when you talk about how Republicans need to change their tune on immigration, are you basically implying we need to look the other way on illegal immigration? Or perhaps do what we can to legalize them, like Reagan and his amnesty? Isn't that part of the Big Tent Republicanism or am I wrong? just seeing what you guys mean.

[mavs>spurs]

i don't get it..so what we're just supposed to have open borders and become the united states of mexico? i don't get how securing the borders and frowning on illegal immigration is such a bad thing, even if you're mexican.

[ElNono]

so for El Nono or CosmicCowboy, when you talk about how Republicans need to change their tune on immigration, are you basically implying we need to look the other way on illegal immigration? Or perhaps do what we can to legalize them, like Reagan and his amnesty? Isn't that part of the Big Tent Republicanism or am I wrong? just seeing what you guys mean.

I can only speak for myself, but what I personally think is that immigration has 1000 degrees of shades between one extreme (zero immigration) and the other (amnesty). To compound the issue, there's both legal and illegal immigration, and if you want to refine even further, there's legal, illegal that migrated willingly and illegal that migrated unwillingly (ie: children of parents that decided to come here illegally, who obviously never had a choice and now they grew here).

Now, all of this gets thrown into the same "immigration reform". Even legal immigrants, because there's the temporary ones (with quotas, includes hot topics like H1Bs) and the permanent ones (without quotas, but with specific qualification criteria).

So it's a big, complex system that when you talk reform, you have to look not just at one single actor, but a handful of different actors. And a lot of times, the message gets all mixed up into the same "brown messican coming here to steal your job".

I personally think illegal immigrants should not have a path to citizenship, that would be rewarding breaking the law. But I also understand that there's a subset of illegals that never made that choice (the illegal that migrated unwillingly as a kid) and in that particular case I think they should have a path to citizenship (and by a path to citizenship I don't mean amnesty. I mean allowing them to stay, work, pay taxes and after X years let them apply for citizenship if they've been good citizens, clean record, etc).

I also understand there's a demand for seasonal cheap labor in the south, and that demand is also a magnet for illegals. So if competitiveness requires such cheap labor to be there, then perhaps a seasonal temporary worker program could be implemented.

The problem the GOP faces, IMO, is that their message on immigration is often full of vitriol (fences! closed borders! dream act is amnesty!). Sure, when the election comes around, they write a couple of lines on their "platform" to try to fish some votes, but latinos ain't buying it. Same with walking on stage a couple of Cubans with feel good stories. What needs to happen is they need to come up with a unified message "this is what we're ok with, and this is what we're not ok with". Perhaps even present legislation accordingly, instead of waiting for some liberal to introduce the Dream Act version 5.0... show some initiative that tells people out there that you studied the issue, that you understand what the situations are, and that you're, up to an extent, willing to compromise in certain areas. It doesn't have to be zero immigration and it doesn't have to be amnesty. There's a lot of different shades in between.

[ElNono]

i don't get it..so what we're just supposed to have open borders and become the united states of mexico? i don't get how securing the borders and frowning on illegal immigration is such a bad thing, even if you're mexican.

Here is exhibit A for superficial analysis of a complex problem. This is the current message, and their problem, which is very real for them, gets lost in the "United States of Mexico" one liners. That's the reason that, when they eventually can vote, they do it the way they do.

[HI-FI]

I can only speak for myself, but what I personally think is that immigration has 1000 degrees of shades between one extreme (zero immigration) and the other (amnesty). To compound the issue, there's both legal and illegal immigration, and if you want to refine even further, there's legal, illegal that migrated willingly and illegal that migrated unwillingly (ie: children of parents that decided to come here illegally, who obviously never had a choice and now they grew here).

Now, all of this gets thrown into the same "immigration reform". Even legal immigrants, because there's the temporary ones (with quotas, includes hot topics like H1Bs) and the permanent ones (without quotas, but with specific qualification criteria).

So it's a big, complex system that when you talk reform, you have to look not just at one single actor, but a handful of different actors. And a lot of times, the message gets all mixed up into the same "brown messican coming here to steal your job".

I personally think illegal immigrants should not have a path to citizenship, that would be rewarding breaking the law. But I also understand that there's a subset of illegals that never made that choice (the illegal that migrated unwillingly as a kid) and in that particular case I think they should have a path to citizenship (and by a path to citizenship I don't mean amnesty. I mean allowing them to stay, work, pay taxes and after X years let them apply for citizenship if they've been good citizens, clean record, etc).

I also understand there's a demand for seasonal cheap labor in the south, and that demand is also a magnet for illegals. So if competitiveness requires such cheap labor to be there, then perhaps a seasonal temporary worker program could be implemented.

The problem the GOP faces, IMO, is that their message on immigration is often full of vitriol (fences! closed borders! dream act is amnesty!). Sure, when the election comes around, they write a couple of lines on their "platform" to try to fish some votes, but latinos ain't buying it. Same with walking on stage a couple of Cubans with feel good stories. What needs to happen is they need to come up with a unified message "this is what we're ok with, and this is what we're not ok with". Perhaps even present legislation accordingly, instead of waiting for some liberal to introduce the Dream Act version 5.0... show some initiative that tells people out there that you studied the issue, that you understand what the situations are, and that you're, up to an extent, willing to compromise in certain areas. It doesn't have to be zero immigration and it doesn't have to be amnesty. There's a lot of different shades in between.
a thoughtful and thorough post, per the par. It's a fascinating topic because the growing mexican situation is paying dividends for Dems. I'm anti-amnesty, as I feel it's an insult to rule of law and legal immigrants. but you're right on illegal children, it's an unfortunate situation. The GOP has tried to go the amnesty/comprehensive reform route with Reagan and Bush and it still backfires. It's helped lead to California being permanently blue, and I'm sure some on here are salivating for that to happen to Texas. I don't think GOP can outbribe or win over hispanics like Dems have, imo. I think this bodes badly for conservative types.

[ElNono]

a thoughtful and thorough post, per the par. It's a fascinating topic because the growing mexican situation is paying dividends for Dems. I'm anti-amnesty, as I feel it's an insult to rule of law and legal immigrants. but you're right on illegal children, it's an unfortunate situation. The GOP has tried to go the amnesty/comprehensive reform route with Reagan and Bush and it still backfires. It's helped lead to California being permanently blue, and I'm sure some on here are salivating for that to happen to Texas. I don't think GOP can outbribe or win over hispanics like Dems have, imo. I think this bodes badly for conservative types.

I think they can. But they need to look at them with respect, not as cheap slaves (to put it bluntly, and yes, I'm generalizing here). As Tanner said: they often sound intolerant and self-righteous. That needs to change. When you earn their trust, they'll be much more open to listening.

[HI-FI]

I think they can. But they need to look at them with respect, not as cheap slaves (to put it bluntly, and yes, I'm generalizing here). As Tanner said: they often sound intolerant and self-righteous. That needs to change. When you earn their trust, they'll be much more open to listening.
i don't know what is the answer. i'm not even sure what Romney's stance on immigration was, tbh I don't know what any of his stances really were, which i imagine is a big part of why he lost. you seem more positive on this me, i just personally feel that conservatives won't win on this, even when they go with Dems on comprehensive immigration reform, it seems to benefit Dems. even if they treat illegals with respect but paint it as a law and order issue, I don't think it will fly imo.

[ElNono]

i don't know what is the answer. i'm not even sure what Romney's stance on immigration was, tbh I don't know what any of his stances really were, which i imagine is a big part of why he lost. you seem more positive on this me, i just personally feel that conservatives won't win on this, even when they go with Dems on comprehensive immigration reform, it seems to benefit Dems. even if they treat illegals with respect but paint it as a law and order issue, I don't think it will fly imo.

Romney coined the "self-deportation" mantra during the primaries to appear tough on immigration, and the party adopted in the plank. But that kinda stuff is what kills him with immigrants. In his platform later on he tried to sugarcoat it with a temp-worker proposal and what not, but you go out there and say stuff like that, you're killing yourself and you're hurting your party. That kinda talk needs to end. It's not that deportation shouldn't exist or shouldn't be applied. But a lot of hispanics lived in terror with that word for many years, and if you keep bringing it front and center, it's gonna backfire. Again, a matter of tone. Not just from candidates, but from the whole party.

[LnGrrrR]

I thought I did a pretty good job months ago.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202651&highlight=open+letter+to+the+rnc

:lol Yes, but you aren't a "face" of the Republican party.