aaaaaa5a
aaaaaa5a's JournalWhat the base of the GOP really thinks about hispanics, immigration, demographics, and destiny.
This is what the base of the party thinks about immigration.
Below is an editorial written for the Investor's Business Daily.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/111612-633828-demographic-transformation-of-america-not-natural.htm?p=full&fromcampaign=1
GOP Date With Demographic Destiny By Government Design
By Mark Steyn
To an immigrant such as myself (not the undocumented kind, but documented up to the hilt, alas), one of the most striking features of election night analysis was the lightly worn racial obsession.
On Fox News, Democrat Kirsten Powers argued that Republicans needed to deal with the reality that America is becoming what she called a "brown country." Her fellow Democrat Bob Beckel observed on several occasions that if the share of the "white vote" was held down below 73% Romney would lose. In the end, it was 72% and he did.
The "white vote" will be even lower in 2016, and so, on the Beckel model, Republicans are set to lose all over again.
Hence the urge to get on the right side of America's fastest-growing demographic. Only 27% of Hispanics voted for Romney. But all that could change if the GOP were to sign on to support some means of legalizing the presence of the 12 million to 20 million fine upstanding members of the Undocumented-American community who are allegedly "social conservatives" and thus natural Republican voters.
Once we pass amnesty, argues Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, "future immigrants will be more open to the Republican Party because, unlike many immigrants who are already here, they won't have been harmed or insulted by Republican politicians."
So, if I follow correctly, instead of getting 27% of the 10% Hispanic vote, Republicans will get, oh, 38% of the 25% Hispanic vote, and sweep to victory.
(snip)
According to the Census, in 1970 the "Non-Hispanic White" population of California was 78%. By the 2010 census, it was 40%. Over the same period, the 10% Hispanic population quadrupled and caught up with whites.
That doesn't sound terribly "natural" does it? If one were informed that, say, the population of Nigeria had gone from 80% black in 1970 to 40% black today, one would suspect something rather odd and unnatural had been going on.
Twenty years ago, Rwanda was about 14% Tutsi. Now it's just under 10%. So it takes a bunch of Hutu butchers getting out their machetes and engaging in seven-figure genocide to lower the Tutsi population by a third.
But, when the white population of California falls by half, that's "natural," just the way it is, one of those things, could happen to anyone.
(snip)
Every four years, the Republican Party pines for another Reagan. But Ronald Reagan, governor of California for eight years, couldn't get elected in today's not-so-Golden State. Jerry Brown, Gov. Moonbeam back in the Seventies, now presides as Gov. Twilight, lead vampire of a malign alliance of unionized bureaucrats and a swollen dependency class that maintains them in office at the expense of a remorselessly shrinking productive class.
As the nation's demographic profile trends ever more Californian, perhaps Norquist's predictions of naturally conservative Hispanics pining for a new Reagan will come to fruition. Or perhaps Bob Beckel's more crudely determinative analysis will prove correct — that, in a multicultural society, jostling identity groups will stick with the party of ethno-cultural spoils.
None of us can know the future. It may be that Charles Krauthammer is correct that Hispanics are natural Republicans merely pining for amnesty, a Hallmark Cinco de Mayo card and a mariachi band at the inaugural ball.
Or it may be that, in defiance of Dr. Krauthammer, Grover Norquist and Little Mary Sunshine, demographics is destiny and, absent assimilationist incentives this country no longer imposes, a Latin-American population will wind up living in a Latin-American society.
Republicans think they're importing hardworking immigrants who want a shot at the American Dream; the Democrats think they're importing clients for Big Government. The left is right: just under 60% of immigrants receive some form of welfare.
I see the recent Republican proposals for some form of amnesty contain all sorts of supposed safeguards against gaming the system, including a $525 dollar application fee for each stage of the legalization process.
On my own recent visit to a U.S. Immigration office, I was interested to be told that, as a matter of policy, the Obama administration is now rubberstamping all "fee waiver" requests for "exceptional hardship" filed by members of approved identity groups.
(snip)
And so it will go for all those GOP safeguards. While Canada and Australia compete for high-skilled immigrants, America fast-tracks an unskilled welfare class of such economic benefit to their new homeland they can't even afford a couple of hundred bucks for the necessary paperwork. It's hardly their fault. If you were told you could walk into a First World nation and access free education, free health care, free services in your own language and have someone else pay your entrance fee, why wouldn't you?
So, yes, Republicans should "moderate" their tone toward immigrants, and de-moderate their attitude to the Dems who suckered the GOP all too predictably. Decades of faintheartedness toward some of the most destabilizing features of any society, including bilingualism (take it from a semi-Belgian Canadian), have brought the party to its date with destiny. Or as Peggy Lee sang long ago in a lost land, "Manana is soon enough for me."
© Mark Steyn, 2012
Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/111612-633828-demographic-transformation-of-america-not-natural.htm#ixzz2DJ4govFP
The Dream Act is not going to fly right through the GOP and pass as easily as pundits claim.
The Civil War has begun. The Republican party is scared of the future. If you are an African American, Hispanic, Asian or any other ethnic or religious minority.... the base of the GOP does not like you.
If you are a Yankee, a woman, an environmentalist, a scientist, a poor person, or believe it shouldn't matter who you love, the GOP doesn't like you either.
etc. etc. etc.
Caption this photo of Mitt Romney
This is a picture of Mitt Romney and his wife over Thanksgiving. Am I the only one who thinks Mitt looks a little crazy?
MSNBC's Morning Joe discusses " The Conservative Entertainment Complex" (with video)
This is the news program "Morning Joe" discussing what has come to be known as the C-E-C. This stands for the Conservative Entertainment Complex. This is an entire media industry driven by media outlets such as FOX News, The Drudge Report and Rush Limbaugh. These entities don't report news, but broadcast untrue stories, conservative talking points and Republican propaganda to increase their audiences size and popularity.
Over time what has developed is an entire Republican "news bubble" where conservatives get their news. This new " GOP news bubble" is void of facts, differentiating points of view and even reality. This is part of what led conservatives to believe that Romney was likely to win on election night. For the entire campaign, conservatives were being fed affirmation stories, when objective polling and news outlets correctly reported Obama as very likely to win.
Conservatives are increasingly rejecting facts, math, science and even basic news because it does not fit their viewpoints. This is the founding base of the CEC.
Jacksonville cop making threatening comments after election not only bad behavior
Source: The Florida Times Union
Sam Koivisto, now a former Jacksonville police officer, told investigators he did comment he’d volunteer to kill President Barack Obama. He told them he was frustrated with the Nov. 6 election and the threat was all talk.
Koivisto, 57, retired last week rather than face an investigation into the comments he made after Obama’s re-election. During his Nov. 9 interview, he also told the integrity unit he had said he would not be bothered if a nuclear explosion “killed them all,” referring to residents of Northeastern states struck by Hurricane Sandy. They were Obama supporters, he said.
Read more: http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-11-21/story/jacksonville-cop-making-threatening-comments-after-election-not-only-bad#ixzz2Cwzab71d
Papa Johns CEO back-tracks on ObamaCare. He now plans to add thousands of jobs.
This was an editorial written today by Pappa John's CEO John Schnatter.
It can be found at the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-h-schnatter/papa-johns-obamacare_b_2166209.html
The Real Scoop on Papa John's and Obamacare
Reading what has been written about statements I made on the effect of the Affordable Care Act on our franchisees reminds me of a quote from Lewis H. Lapham, former editor of Harper's magazine: "People may expect too much of journalism. Not only do they expect it to be entertaining, they expect it to be true."
Many in the media reported that I said Papa John's is going to close stores and cut jobs because of Obamacare. I never said that. The fact is we are going to open over hundreds of stores this year and next and increase employment by over 5,000 jobs worldwide. And, we have no plans to cut team hours as a result of the Affordable Care Act.
Here is the part of the interchange that was the genesis of the news:
Reporter: "Do you think your -- you know -- franchise owners... are going to cut people hours back to make them part time instead of full time?"
Me: "Well, in Hawaii there is a form of the same kind of health insurance and that's what you do, you find loopholes to get around it. That's what they're going to do."
Reporter: "My understanding is that if you're a full time employee, which is 35 hours or over, you'd be covered. Or if you're part time then you wouldn't be. So wouldn't some business owners just cut people down like 34 hours a week so they wouldn't have to pay for health insurance?"
Me: "It's common sense. It's what I call lose-lose."
The reporter asked what I believed Papa John's franchisees would do in response to Obamacare, not what Papa John's would do. In fact, her question was "wouldn't some business owners just cut people down like 34 hours a week so they wouldn't have to pay for health insurance?"
My answer: "It's common sense."
During that same interview, talking about Obamacare I said, though it wasn't widely reported:
"The good news is 100% of the population (full-time workers) is going to get health insurance. I'm cool with that."
"We're all going to pay for it. There's nothing for free."
"And this way I get to provide health insurance and I'm not at a competitive disadvantage ... our competitors are going to have to do the same thing."
Papa John's, like most businesses, is still researching what the Affordable Care Act means to our operations. Regardless of the conclusion of our analysis, we will honor this law, as we do all laws, and continue to offer 100% of Papa John's corporate employees and workers in company-owned stores health insurance as we have since the company was founded in 1984.
More at link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-h-schnatter/papa-johns-obamacare_b_2166209.html
This is a picture of Schnatter's popular pizza commercials with fellow Papa Johns owner, quarterback Peyton Manning. The Broncos quarterback regularly gives thousands of dollars to GOP candidates.
Schnatter's multi-million dollar mansion
Looks like backtracking to me. But you guys be the judge.
Maddow, O’Donnell Win Demo Last Week, But Fox News Still on Top in Primetime
This was originally in the breaking news section of DU. It was closed because it didn't meet the qualifications to be there. I saw that there was still interest in the topic. So I moved the OP/Thread here.
Source: Mediabistro
Fox News held its usual perch as the top cable news channel in primetime for the week of November 12-16, but two of MSNBC’s programs — “The Rachel Maddow Show” and “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell” — won their respective time slots among younger viewers last week.
For the week of November 12-16, Maddow’s 9 p.m. program averaged 480,000 A25-54 viewers, while “Hannity” had 439,000. In the 10 p.m. timeslot, “The Last Word” averaged 396,000 viewers in the demo, and “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” had 362,000.
Read more: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/maddow-odonnell-win-demo-last-week-but-fox-news-still-on-top-in-primetime_b155805
MSNBC has really been gaining on FOX. Over the last several weeks they have had some shows that are consistently beating FOX with viewers under 54 years old . Lets hope this trend continues once the happiness of the Obama victory begins to fade.
FOX news only wins the total viewer category because their audience demographics trend so old.
More info here:
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/
Fox News is continuing to show weakness in its primetime schedule in the wake of President Obama’s reelection. In the eight days since election day MSNBC’s average audience for the key 25-54 year old demographic drew about 8% more viewers than Fox. MSNBC led Fox in primetime on five of the eight days between November 7 and November 16.
Particularly impressive were the results of the two powerhouse programs on the MSNBC lineup: Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell. Maddow won seven of the eight days against her Fox competition, Sean Hannity. For the 8-day run Maddow beat Hannity by 18%. O’Donnell won all eight days against Fox’s Greta Van Susteren. His margin of victory over Van Susteren was 17% for the eight days.
This can no longer be considered a temporary blip on the ratings scales. With two weeks having elapsed, the MSNBC programs are showing steady strength against competition that was once thought insurmountable. Only Bill O’Reilly is holding his top position for Fox in primetime. This may indicate that Sean Hannity is wearing thin with viewers who are likely disappointed with his overly confident (and harebrained) assurances that all the polls were wrong and that Mitt Romney would emerge victorious.
More at link above.
Maddow, O’Donnell Win Demo Last Week, But Fox News Still on Top in Primetime
Source: Mediabistro
Fox News held its usual perch as the top cable news channel in primetime for the week of November 12-16, but two of MSNBC’s programs — “The Rachel Maddow Show” and “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell” — won their respective time slots among younger viewers last week.
For the week of November 12-16, Maddow’s 9 p.m. program averaged 480,000 A25-54 viewers, while “Hannity” had 439,000. In the 10 p.m. timeslot, “The Last Word” averaged 396,000 viewers in the demo, and “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” had 362,000.
Read more: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/maddow-odonnell-win-demo-last-week-but-fox-news-still-on-top-in-primetime_b155805
MSNBC has really been gaining on FOX. Over the last several weeks they have had some shows that are consistently beating FOX with viewers under 54 years old . Lets hope this trend continues once the happiness of the Obama victory begins to fade.
FOX news only wins the total viewer category because their audience demographics trend so old.
Sorry, I refuse to forget how bad right wing propaganda polling really is.
Video courtesy of FOX News.
Suffolk University pollster told everyone they were no longer polling in Florida, Virginia and North Carolina, because Obama had no chance of winning.
Virginia... Obama-1,905,528-50.8% Romney-1,789,618-47.8%
Florida... Obama-4,236,032-50.0% Romney-4,162,174-49.1
Do we now hold an edge in National Presidential races?
Republican % Presidential popular vote totals 1992-2012 (20 years)
1992-George Bush Sr. 37%
1996-Bob Dole 41%
2000-George Bush 48%
2004-George Bush 51%
2008-John McCain 46%
2012-Mitt Romney 48%
In the last 6 Presidential races spanning 20 years, a Republican has received the majority of the popular vote only once (2004/51%). No GOP nominee has won more than 286 electoral college votes during this time span.
The GOP has lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections. By modern era Presidential standards, 2 of the last 6 races have been blowouts (Clinton-1996, Obama-2008) in favor of the Democratic nominee. You have to go back to 1988, to find the last time the Republicans dominated on a Presidential election night.
In 4 of the last 6 elections the Democratic nominee has topped 300 electoral college votes.
From 1992 to 2016 (24 years) we will have 16 years of Democratic Presidential rule compared to only 8 for the GOP. It should be noted (as everyone here knows) that the GOP is credited with one Presidential victory despite losing the popular vote by more than a half million in 2000.
Profile Information
Member since: Tue Apr 8, 2008, 08:20 PMNumber of posts: 4,667
