Salon Magazine:Lincoln's Unfinished War On The South

[FaninAma]

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/05/welcome_to_the_new_civil_war/

If there are a lot of progressives who buy into this garbage then we are truly entering an unsettling period in the direction of this country.

[SicEmBaylor]

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/05/welcome_to_the_new_civil_war/

If there are a lot of progressives who buy into this garbage then we are truly entering an unsettling period in the direction of this country.

Unfortunately, there are a fair number of 'conservatives' who buy into that garbage as well.

[FaninAma]

Unfortunately, there are a fair number of 'conservatives' who buy into that garbage as well.
I take it that you feel all who wrap themselves in the conservative label are not true conservatives. I agree.

Any conjecture where this divide between the deep blue states and deep red states ends up?

The meaning of "the tyranny of the majority" seems to have been turned on its head in this country.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The constitution, capitalism and christianity are targeted for demise. This is not difficult to notice

[SicEmBaylor]

I take it that you feel all who wrap themselves in the conservative label are not true conservatives. I agree.
Many of them are not, no. I can't take a conservative seriously who argues for a limited Federal government in one breath and praises Lincoln in the next. It's also hard to handle conservatives who tell me we're so far beyond the war that it's no longer relevant. There is hardly an issue, relevant today, that is not linked to the results of that war. Any conservative who rejects the earliest and most fundamental American principle...the right of a people to abolish their existing political allegiances and form a new government of their choosing...is no true conservative. Conservatism is about conserving our founding principles and safeguarding those principles from encroachment. Many conservatives fail in that regard which is why I refuse to consider them conservatives.

I'm not saying everyone is perfect -- Everyone has their shortcomings and nobody is right all the time, but praising Lincoln amounts to a litmus test for me.


Any conjecture where this divide between the deep blue states and deep red states ends up?
An increasing number of people are asking that same question. There is a lot of uncertainty as to what the future holds. I honestly do not know. I tend to think that if some sort of major break down happens then it will fall along ideological lines but not necessarily state lines though clearly there will be more support for one side or the other depending on what state you're in.

In the end, I think the creep of socialism will either continue unabated or enough of the American people will put an end to it. I tend to believe the former, but that's because of how innately pessimistic I am about the future.


The meaning of "the tyranny of the majority" seems to have been turned on its head in this country.
Indeed.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Hey, I believe in the legal right of same sex marriage and I'm neither progressive (whatever the **** that is) nor conservative.

It's not garbage, it's a no-brainer if you believe in freedom and equal protection under the law.

[SicEmBaylor]

Hey, I believe in the legal right of same sex marriage and I'm neither progressive (whatever the **** that is) nor conservative.

So do I.....so long as it's kept a state issue.

Actually, I wish the government would get out of the marriage business entirely.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Unfortunately, there are a fair number of 'conservatives' who buy into that garbage as well.What conservatives buy into what specific garbage? I read the article. Are you speaking specifically about abortion, marriage between other than a man and woman, or what? The author of the article said "secession is no longer an option". Why wouldn't it be an option?

[yermom]

The meaning of "the tyranny of the majority" seems to have been turned on its head in this country.

how so?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The author dismisses people's calling Obama a socialist as wrong. Doesn't go into the illegal activities either. He carries on as if the socialism is a noble thing. Sad, indeed.

[KantoSooner]

Stokely Carmichael made an interesting comment about racism during the civil rights era in the 1960's:
"In the South, they don't care how close you get, as long as you don't get too big.
In the North, they don't care how big you get, as long as you don't get too close."

There's a lot of truth to that, but the larger point is that a lot of people who consider themselves to be somehow 'enlightened' are in fact just as biased, just in different ways.

Many of the so-called 'conservative' positions are nothing more than naive, unexamined desires to return to a social order that, firstly, never existed and secondly was itself the product of principles utterly at odds with any sensible conception of freedom, democracy, republicanism, liberty or the due respect between honest humans.

Seriously, does anyone really want to 'return' to a world in which slavery exists? An economy based on slavery? A society in which membership in a certain religious order was a condition prior to running for office? A world in which women could not own real property? Or deny a man access to their body? And so forth...

And yet these were, once, 'tradition'. And not in some misty far off time. Straight through the mid-nineteenth century, these were reality.

And not just in the South. That the South is the GOP's home base now is not a big shocker, Nixon created it as such with his 'Southern Strategy' in the 1960's. Which basically lashed the GOP to a policy of opposing civil rights for blacks. And how far is that from self-declaring as the party of racism? Prior to that, we will recall, the South was the home of 'Yellow Dog Democrats'; but that was back when the Dems were willing to trade noxious racial policies for votes. It comes and it goes.

And, as for secession, read the new Meacham book on Jefferson. It would seem that Tommy his own self was of the opinion that, once you join the union and ratify the Constitution, you're in. Without an out.

That and we fought a war over the issue. Settled. Forever.

[FaninAma]

how so?

For decades the left has whined about the tyranny of the conservative majority and have used the courts to thwart conservative legislative actions. Now the left, perceiving they have gained the upper hand, are advocating using any means necessary to advance their agenda,( including limiting debate in the Senate, the use of executive orders to over rule state and federal laws they do not like) while espousing how the enlightened, modern liberal blue states should isolate and ignore the evil southern conservatives.

I know you'll disagree. Shocking. But take a moment to read the comments in the article I linked. The disourse in this country is getting pretty harsh and will continue to do so. I personally think it is about time to stop being civil to people who continue to support an a grasping, enlarging central government. And as Sic'em pointed out, that includes the moderate GOP in sheep's clothing that differ from big government Democrats in degree only.

[FaninAma]

Stokely Carmichael made an interesting comment about racism during the civil rights era in the 1960's:
"In the South, they don't care how close you get, as long as you don't get too big.
In the North, they don't care how big you get, as long as you don't get too close."

There's a lot of truth to that, but the larger point is that a lot of people who consider themselves to be somehow 'enlightened' are in fact just as biased, just in different ways.

Many of the so-called 'conservative' positions are nothing more than naive, unexamined desires to return to a social order that, firstly, never existed and secondly was itself the product of principles utterly at odds with any sensible conception of freedom, democracy, republicanism, liberty or the due respect between honest humans. The Progressive philosophy is based on the assumption by the progressives that they are smarter and more capable of making decisions for their fellow citizens than those who disagree with them but they need government authority to put this belief into action.

Seriously, does anyone really want to 'return' to a world in which slavery exists? An economy based on slavery? A society in which membership in a certain religious order was a condition prior to running for office? A world in which women could not own real property? Or deny a man access to their body? And so forth...

And yet these were, once, 'tradition'. And not in some misty far off time. Straight through the mid-nineteenth century, these were reality.

And not just in the South. That the South is the GOP's home base now is not a big shocker, Nixon created it as such with his 'Southern Strategy' in the 1960's. Which basically lashed the GOP to a policy of opposing civil rights for blacks. And how far is that from self-declaring as the party of racism? Prior to that, we will recall, the South was the home of 'Yellow Dog Democrats'; but that was back when the Dems were willing to trade noxious racial policies for votes. It comes and it goes.

And, as for secession, read the new Meacham book on Jefferson. It would seem that Tommy his own self was of the opinion that, once you join the union and ratify the Constitution, you're in. Without an out.

That and we fought a war over the issue. Settled. Forever.

Kanto, can you support your claim with evidence that the GOP of today opposes civil rights for blacks?

I actually think the philosophical divide is much simpler. Southern conservatives feel they can take care of themselves better than the government can and prefer government authority be as localized as possible. Northern Progressives and their allies have little faith in human nature or their own ability to control their own destiny and feel they have to have an all-powerful federal government to correct the ineqaulities they see in our society. They have no faith in their fellow citizens, especially us evil conservatives, to do the right thing on our own.

Part of this philosophy is rooted in the Chrisitan heritage of the South which believes man answers to a higher authority than man. I would propose to you that this philosophy is much closer to the original philosophy of the framers of the Constitution than the secular Progressive ideology that all inequalities and injustices can and should be addressed by the elitist ruling class who agree with them.

[Curly Bill]

Stokely Carmichael made an interesting comment about racism during the civil rights era in the 1960's:
"In the South, they don't care how close you get, as long as you don't get too big.
In the North, they don't care how big you get, as long as you don't get too close."

There's a lot of truth to that, but the larger point is that a lot of people who consider themselves to be somehow 'enlightened' are in fact just as biased, just in different ways.

Many of the so-called 'conservative' positions are nothing more than naive, unexamined desires to return to a social order that, firstly, never existed and secondly was itself the product of principles utterly at odds with any sensible conception of freedom, democracy, republicanism, liberty or the due respect between honest humans.

Seriously, does anyone really want to 'return' to a world in which slavery exists? An economy based on slavery? A society in which membership in a certain religious order was a condition prior to running for office? A world in which women could not own real property? Or deny a man access to their body? And so forth...

And yet these were, once, 'tradition'. And not in some misty far off time. Straight through the mid-nineteenth century, these were reality.

And not just in the South. That the South is the GOP's home base now is not a big shocker, Nixon created it as such with his 'Southern Strategy' in the 1960's. Which basically lashed the GOP to a policy of opposing civil rights for blacks. And how far is that from self-declaring as the party of racism? Prior to that, we will recall, the South was the home of 'Yellow Dog Democrats'; but that was back when the Dems were willing to trade noxious racial policies for votes. It comes and it goes.

And, as for secession, read the new Meacham book on Jefferson. It would seem that Tommy his own self was of the opinion that, once you join the union and ratify the Constitution, you're in. Without an out.

That and we fought a war over the issue. Settled. Forever.

Were you a true student of history you'd know that hardly anything, and in fact maybe nothing, is settled forever.

[KantoSooner]

Fanin,
Nixon's 'Southern Strategy' did, indeed, oppose civil rights expansion for black americans. Although current GOP policies are much less anti-civil rights than they were, not much has been done by the GOP to be inclusive. This has been a continuing problem. Hispanics, for instance, are a natural constituency for the GOP, and yet the party has managed to alienate most of them. Symbolism is important in that it forms general senses of 'welcome'...or not. So far, the GOP has not created that sense for black or other minority americans, whatever the reality of current policy.

Curly, regarding secession, you can be right in the broad sweep of history. From the point of view of Constitutional law, however, the principle that secession is not an option is about as solidly established as you can get. I can't really conceive of any legal manuver that would get that reviewed (the petitions are a joke); thus, you're talking a war if you want to secede. And I don't see that happening anytime soon.

But, given 3-400 years, maybe, sure.

[Curly Bill]

I agree that near-term as much as I might find the secession question attractive, that it's not doable.

[FaninAma]

Kanto,

I disagree that the GOP has alienated hispanics based on legitimate civil rights issues. I would propose that the Democrtatic party has done an excellent job of using the GOP as a foil or boogeyman to hold together the disparate Democratic coalition that keeps them in office on a national level. The Democrats have mastered the technique of using legitimate issues to separate out segments of society by promising special priviliges to the various segments of their coalition and presenting the GOP as being against these special prvileges for hispanics and blacks because the GOP supports enforcing current immigration laws or supports applying the laws of the land in a race neutral way. The Democrats have done an excellent job of convincing minorities that thaey cannot possibly survive or thrive wothout the help of a paternalisitc federal government keeping the white majority(for now) in line.

Minorities see the Democrats as their protector ebcause they have been convinced that the white majority are basically racists and determined to discriminate against them. In other words the Democrats have played the race card in naional politics for a long time now. we will see how long they can continue this scam before the various minorities realize that the government cannot legislate economic equality. If blacks are to be the measuring stick of this test it appears it can be continued for a good while.

The GOP wants to keep blacks in chains. The rich need to pay their fair share. Romney was only concerned about his rich business buddies. You need us or the wealthy and better off will continue to cheat lie and steal from you. It really does get pathetic at some point.

[okie52]

Fanin,
Nixon's 'Southern Strategy' did, indeed, oppose civil rights expansion for black americans. Although current GOP policies are much less anti-civil rights than they were, not much has been done by the GOP to be inclusive. This has been a continuing problem. Hispanics, for instance, are a natural constituency for the GOP, and yet the party has managed to alienate most of them. Symbolism is important in that it forms general senses of 'welcome'...or not. So far, the GOP has not created that sense for black or other minority americans, whatever the reality of current policy.

Curly, regarding secession, you can be right in the broad sweep of history. From the point of view of Constitutional law, however, the principle that secession is not an option is about as solidly established as you can get. I can't really conceive of any legal manuver that would get that reviewed (the petitions are a joke); thus, you're talking a war if you want to secede. And I don't see that happening anytime soon.

But, given 3-400 years, maybe, sure.

If the GOP would just sell out and utter the magic words "open borders and amnesty" then all would be good with the hispanics and the GOP would be electing presidents. Of course I wouldn't vote for them.

[KantoSooner]

Yup. I have wondered for quite some time why the GOP, if they want to win, can't resist trotting out negative arguments and seem utterly unwilling to make positive ones. Where are the arguments in favor of economic opportunity and fiscal sanity when pluffing the party to Hispanics, and Blacks? Not to be seen. What we get instead is ranting about welfare queens and illegal immigration.
I have to wonder why so many in the party seem to think that people enjoy being scolded and made the official cause of all society's ills? You don't have to be an ace sales guy to realize that is NOT the way to win friends and influence people.

[Curly Bill]

Let's make this argument simple: The reason the donks are winning on the national level right now is because they're giving away more free sh*t!

[okie52]

Yup. I have wondered for quite some time why the GOP, if they want to win, can't resist trotting out negative arguments and seem utterly unwilling to make positive ones. Where are the arguments in favor of economic opportunity and fiscal sanity when pluffing the party to Hispanics, and Blacks? Not to be seen. What we get instead is ranting about welfare queens and illegal immigration.
I have to wonder why so many in the party seem to think that people enjoy being scolded and made the official cause of all society's ills? You don't have to be an ace sales guy to realize that is NOT the way to win friends and influence people.

Hard to sweep 12,000,000 protesting, demanding their rights and benefits, illegals under the rug particularly when they have the overwhelming support of the Hispanic community.

If the Hispanic community supported the laws and the territorial sovereignty of this country there wouldn't be an issue.

[KantoSooner]

jWow. Just Wow!

So, all Hispanics are criminal sympathizers if they are not actual criminals themselves.

Do I need another example?

[okie52]

jWow. Just Wow!

So, all Hispanics are criminal sympathizers if they are not actual criminals themselves.

Do I need another example?

Wow, just Wow!!!

You didn't know legal Hispanics overwhelmingly support amnesty? Since, as you say, they are a natural constituency for the pubs, why else would they vote dem?

Do I need another example?

[KantoSooner]

Did you have a mother? Did she ever advise you that, if you want to play nicey with someone you say something nice or nothing at all?

What surprises me is that you'd think the GOP would ever have another Hispanic vote if they are treated as you do above. And that, of course means that the GOP can pretty much forget about winning any national office again, ever.

Still with me? Try this: do whatever you want on immigration, but spend some time on explaining to the Hispanic community why other GOP policies are things they agree with and are beneficial to them as well as to the society as a whole. You need not pander but you also probably ought to lay off simply labelling 20% or so of the population as criminals on the basis of their ethnicity.

Or not, it might be more fun to be the grumpy guy at the corner bar stool for the next century or so.

Up to you.

[FaninAma]

Another example that the Democrats think they don't need to work with the GOP:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/democrats-taunt-gop-house-members-party-retreat-151726259--election.html

I truly wished the GOP had the backbone to not raise the debt ceiling until Obama caved on spending cuts. But that's not going to happen.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Kanto, can you support your claim with evidence that the GOP of today opposes civil rights for blacks?

I actually think the philosophical divide is much simpler. Southern conservatives feel they can take care of themselves better than the government can and prefer government authority be as localized as possible. Northern Progressives and their allies have little faith in human nature or their own ability to control their own destiny and feel they have to have an all-powerful federal government to correct the ineqaulities they see in our society. They have no faith in their fellow citizens, especially us evil conservatives, to do the right thing on our own.

Part of this philosophy is rooted in the Chrisitan heritage of the South which believes man answers to a higher authority than man. I would propose to you that this philosophy is much closer to the original philosophy of the framers of the Constitution than the secular Progressive ideology that all inequalities and injustices can and should be addressed by the elitist ruling class who agree with them.well said. This attack on the South is merely a disguised attack on the Constitution of the USA.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

So in the stark terms of the left, a baby is a economic injustice. An economic injustice is a lot easier to kill I guess.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Kanto,

I disagree that the GOP has alienated hispanics based on legitimate civil rights issues. I would propose that the Democrtatic party has done an excellent job of using the GOP as a foil or boogeyman to hold together the disparate Democratic coalition that keeps them in office on a national level. The Democrats have mastered the technique of using legitimate issues to separate out segments of society by promising special priviliges to the various segments of their coalition and presenting the GOP as being against these special prvileges for hispanics and blacks because the GOP supports enforcing current immigration laws or supports applying the laws of the land in a race neutral way. The Democrats have done an excellent job of convincing minorities that thaey cannot possibly survive or thrive wothout the help of a paternalisitc federal government keeping the white majority(for now) in line.

Minorities see the Democrats as their protector ebcause they have been convinced that the white majority are basically racists and determined to discriminate against them. In other words the Democrats have played the race card in naional politics for a long time now. we will see how long they can continue this scam before the various minorities realize that the government cannot legislate economic equality. If blacks are to be the measuring stick of this test it appears it can be continued for a good while.

The GOP wants to keep blacks in chains. The rich need to pay their fair share. Romney was only concerned about his rich business buddies. You need us or the wealthy and better off will continue to cheat lie and steal from you. It really does get pathetic at some point.Right ON!(no pun intended)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Yup. I have wondered for quite some time why the GOP, if they want to win, can't resist trotting out negative arguments and seem utterly unwilling to make positive ones. Where are the arguments in favor of economic opportunity and fiscal sanity when pluffing the party to Hispanics, and Blacks? Not to be seen. What we get instead is ranting about welfare queens and illegal immigration.
I have to wonder why so many in the party seem to think that people enjoy being scolded and made the official cause of all society's ills? You don't have to be an ace sales guy to realize that is NOT the way to win friends and influence people.you don't seem to realize the enormity of the combined power of the MSM, Entertainment Industry, the Public Schools, and the Democrat politicians, and their intent to see that the Democrats succeed. Lies, mischaracterizations, and personal political destruction are how they operate, and it bothers them not in the least, it seems.

[okie52]

Did you have a mother? Did she ever advise you that, if you want to play nicey with someone you say something nice or nothing at all?

What surprises me is that you'd think the GOP would ever have another Hispanic vote if they are treated as you do above. And that, of course means that the GOP can pretty much forget about winning any national office again, ever.

Still with me? Try this: do whatever you want on immigration, but spend some time on explaining to the Hispanic community why other GOP policies are things they agree with and are beneficial to them as well as to the society as a whole. You need not pander but you also probably ought to lay off simply labelling 20% or so of the population as criminals on the basis of their ethnicity.

Or not, it might be more fun to be the grumpy guy at the corner bar stool for the next century or so.

Up to you.

Didn't your mother tell you the difference between right and wrong or did she tell you just to go along with the crowd? It's easier, I'll admit, and they may even like you for it. And that's what's really important, isn't it?

Did I say something untrue or injurious to Hispanics or was it just some PC faux pas? Perhaps we should remove the term "illegal" and move to "undocumented worker"....would that be more palatable for you?

Still with me? Are the supporters of legal immigration to the tune of 600,000 new citizens per year being unkind to those 12,000,000 "undocumented workers" by insisting they be denied citizenship? Are they somehow trampling on these people's rights? Was one amnesty for 3,000,000 "undocumented workers" not enough?

Personally I don't care if the pubs win another national election if it is incumbent on them to give amnesty to those that don't deserve it or to adopt policies that are harmful to the country.

Now there will be those like you that think that winning is more important than principles and that political expediency is more "enlightened" than long term solutions. If that's the choice I prefer to be that "grumpy old man" on the corner bar stool. Next century or so?...well, I'd be a very old grumpy old man.

[KantoSooner]

If the Hispanic community supported the laws and the territorial sovereignty of this country there wouldn't be an issue.-Okie52

Call me crazy, but that right there is you, calling the entire Hispanic community criminals.

Now, my right/wrong meter seems to be working fine, just thumped it this morning and the needle didn't jump a'tall. Nor, in review, was their any trouble with my writing. It was completely clear that you need not pander, nor change any policy.

You just need to stop labelling people whose votes you need as somehow bad and beyond the pale. Here's the real deal: lots of Hispanics are violently against illegal immigration. Lots of Hispanics (probably real close to the national average of around 30%) lean Republican. But our cute little party keeps shoving them away; or insulting them if they stay.

You may not care if the GOP never wins another election; I do. I don't want endless Dem admins stretching out as far as the eye can see. I'm not going to move to Idaho and live in a cabin. I'm not going to sit around and bitch all day either.

I'd just like someone in our party to pull their head out their bunghole and start selling a Goldwaterite conservative agenda rather than giving people excuses and reasons to hold their nose and vote Obama.

[okie52]

If the Hispanic community supported the laws and the territorial sovereignty of this country there wouldn't be an issue.-Okie52

Call me crazy, but that right there is you, calling the entire Hispanic community criminals.

I'm calling you crazy. Stating that someone or a community doesn't support current laws isn't calling them criminals, it is merely stating they don't support the law. Same could be said for those that support gay marriage and/or legalizing pot...both are positions which I support but neither are legal in most states.

Now, my right/wrong meter seems to be working fine, just thumped it this morning and the needle didn't jump a'tall. Nor, in review, was their any trouble with my writing. It was completely clear that you need not pander, nor change any policy.

You just need to stop labelling people whose votes you need as somehow bad and beyond the pale. Here's the real deal: lots of Hispanics are violently against illegal immigration. Lots of Hispanics (probably real close to the national average of around 30%) lean Republican. But our cute little party keeps shoving them away; or insulting them if they stay.

You may not care if the GOP never wins another election; I do. I don't want endless Dem admins stretching out as far as the eye can see. I'm not going to move to Idaho and live in a cabin. I'm not going to sit around and bitch all day either.

I'd just like someone in our party to pull their head out their bunghole and start selling a Goldwaterite conservative agenda rather than giving people excuses and reasons to hold their nose and vote Obama.

Labeling...as in what?

If you want to go with pragmatism I'm all for it. But we might be wrong in assuming that Hispanics are a natural constituency for repubs. Even after Reagan granted amnesty for 3,000,000 illegals Daddy Bush only got around 30% of the hispanic vote. Have the pubs carried the hispanic vote in the last 25 years? What goes unstated is about 2/3 of the hispanic community are falling near the poverty level and the appeal of big government may be the dems real draw in spite of the illegal debate.

[KantoSooner]

Good freaking Jesus on a pogo stick!
I can not believe we're arguing over this. Look, I am not trying to change your mind about immigration policy. We probably differ on that, but it's not important. Nor am I trying to get you give up anything other than what I consider to be a counterproductive slur campaign against an entire population of LEGAL citizens in order that we might get a few more votes for the GOP ticket.

I give up, you win. As you were.

Keep your day job, though. The world of sales is not going to be a fertile alternative career.

[okie52]

Good freaking Jesus on a pogo stick!
I can not believe we're arguing over this. Look, I am not trying to change your mind about immigration policy. We probably differ on that, but it's not important. Nor am I trying to get you give up anything other than what I consider to be a counterproductive slur campaign against an entire population of LEGAL citizens in order that we might get a few more votes for the GOP ticket.

I give up, you win. As you were.

Keep your day job, though. The world of sales is not going to be a fertile alternative career.

Sales is my day job...now what am I going to do?

Please explain the slur job on the hispanic community...I'm trying to upgrade my sensitivity meter.

[okie52]

Hispanics Were Democrats Long Before Illegal Immigration Became an Issue

By Ronald W. Mortensen, November 8, 2012

According to the Wall Street Journal, Mitt Romney's hard line on illegal immigration was a major contributing factor to his failure to win the presidency. It goes on to say that "The GOP needs to leave its anti-immigration absolutists behind."

The Journal justifies its call for expelling those who oppose illegal immigration and its rampant employment-related felonies as well as those who expect immigrants to come to the United States legally based on the fact that 71 percent of Hispanics voted for Obama while Romney only obtained 27 percent of Hispanic votes.

Of course, the pro-illegal-immigration Journal as well as other pro-illegal-immigrant elements of the Republican party fail to acknowledge that for at least the last nine elections, Hispanics have voted heavily in favor of Democratic presidential candidates over Republican candidates by an average of 64 percent to 31 percent, as shown by data compiled by the Pew Hispanic Center.

Year Democrat Republican
1980/Reagan/Carter) 56% 35%
1984 (Reagan/Mondale) 61% 37%
1988 (Bush/Dukakis) 69% 30%
1992 (Bush/Clinton) 61% 25%
1996 (Dole/Clinton) 72% 21%
2000 (Bush/Gore) 62% 35%
2004 (Bush/Kerry) 58% 40%
2008 (Obama/McCain) 67% 31%
2012 (Obama/Romney) 71% 27%
Average 64% 31%

The expulsion crowd at the Journal never acknowledges the fact that pro-amnesty, "comprehensive immigration reform" leader John McCain (R-Ariz.), was rejected by 67 percent of Hispanic voters, that 72 percent of Hispanics voted against Bob Dole, that 69 percent voted against the elder Bush and that 62 percent voted against the younger Bush. So, it could be argued that Romney's "tough" illegal immigration stance cost him only 4 percentage points of the Hispanic vote as opposed to that of McCain and that he actually picked up 6 points over Dole and 2 points more than Bush senior did.

The bottom line is that Hispanics are largely Democrats and they don't swing their support to pro-illegal-immigration Republicans such as McCain and or even to Bush senior, who was vice president at the time of the 1986 amnesty.

In fact, after the 1986 amnesty was signed by President Reagan, the Hispanic vote for the Democratic presidential candidate (Michael Dukakis) in the next election increased by 8 percent. After McCain attempted to push through another amnesty, Hispanic support for the Democratic candidate (Barack Obama) in the next presidential election increased by 9 percent over that received by John Kerry in the previous presidential election.

So if favoring illegal immigration and rewarding illegal aliens is not the key to winning Hispanic votes, what is? Polls show that Hispanics strongly support government welfare and entitlement programs such as Obamacare. In fact, according to surveys reported by the Pew Hispanic Center, 69 percent of Hispanics support expanding or leaving Obamacare as currently constituted. That 69 percent is eerily close to the 71 percent of the Hispanic vote that went to President Obama.

The Wall Street Journal and the businesses that support illegal immigration need to carefully rethink their support of illegal immigration before reading anyone out of the minority-friendly, business-friendly, and disputably small government Republican Party. And while they are at it, they had better think long and hard about how they are going to stem the continued expansion of the welfare state and prevent higher taxes while at the same time supporting illegal immigration in order to gain the votes of Hispanic Democrats.

Seems the pragmatic approach would be to not get more poor, democrat voting illegals in the country.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Seems the pragmatic approach would be to not get more poor, democrat voting illegals in the country.it's over, kaput. We now live in a transformed country, that will get LOTS more transformation, and at an ever increasing rate. Dependency prevails!

[diverdog]

I decided to wait until I got home from work to respond to this post.

As many of you know I was raised a military brat and I think I have a unique perspective on this country. My family lived primarily in Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Illinois, Maryland, Delaware, California and Wyoming. We lived in Alabama on 3 different occasions and saw the civil rights movement during the 60's. I can also remember seeing DC burning from our home in Maryland right after MLK was assassinated.

From a cultural standpoint I consider myself more of a Westerner than anything. But I also strongly identify with the South. We loved Alabama and I thought my family would end up there one day. After HS I left Alabama to go to the Citadel in Charleston SC. A Southern military school steeped in Southern tradition.

Here are my two cents for what they are worth.

I hate, absolutely hate this whole Red State/Blue State argument. It is something that has been created and stoked by the media. If you look at that stupid map you would think that all the Republicans live in the South and all the Democrats live in the Northeast and West Coast. That is not reality. The South has a very sizable chunk of Democrats. My sister who lives in NC calls Chapel Hill The Peoples Republic of Chapel Hill because it is so liberal. Austin Texas is another example of a slice of liberal heaven in a Red State (LOL). On the flip side Western Pennsylvania is a hot bed of Republicanism. Parts of California are dominated by the Republican Party and even in Delaware our Southern most county Sussex County is Republican. Two Southern states are more purple than Red....NC and Virginia. Florida could also be added to the mix. My point is that map is nothing but a talking point that has zero basis in reality. No state is 100% pure of one party or the other. In some states the margin between Democratic voters and Republican votes is razor thin. Other than a graphic for the Electorial College the Red State/Blue State map is sh*t.

As far as the Civil War is concerned I will tell you my experience. Having lived in the north for 25 years I can tell you we do not give a rats *** about the Civil War. Hell on race weekend in Dover you will see more Confederate Flags flying at Dover Downs than there are in the entire state of Mississippi. It is something that is just not dwelled upon up here. Living in the south it was an entirely different story. At the Citadel it was drilled into us that it was not the Civil War but the War of Northern Aggression. The South has never gotten over the Civil War. The Southern Heroes of the war are still remembered and celebrated. You would be hard pressed to find a single northerner who could name more than two Civil War generals. I doubt they could name the President of the Confederacy. The north let war go 150 years ago and look upon as a historical event. The South has never gotten over the loss and on occasion some idiot from the North has to remind them about it.

The biggest difference I see between the North and the South is religion. The North (and this is an opinion) keeps religion a little more at arms length. Religion seems more intellectual. This is not a dig against the South but a comment on how I feel about religion in the North. We have the Christian Scientist and Quakers. In some cities the Catholic Church dominates and others it is Episcopal or Presbyterian. People who go to church in the north are not nearly as tied to them socially as they are in the south. Mega Churches are the exception not the rule. I also think there is a deeply held suspicion of religion in parts of the north because of the history of the Puritans and things like the Salem Witch Trials. What I notice in the South is that the church plays a central part in every day life. People seem to be tied to their church from a social standpoint and the religion is often more fundamental than mainstream. I don't think the south is more religious than the north it is just different. I think religion drives a certain amount of politics in the south where it is almost apolitical in the north.

People say the country is more divided than ever and I think this is just media hype. Most Americans pay very little attention to politics. The small fraction of the population who are interested in this kind of stuff is divided but I do not think it even approaches some of the most contentious times in our history. What is driving this is the twenty four seven news cycle. The media is largely owned by a few corporations and they are trying to sell ratings. To get ratings they have to out radicalize each other and create interest. I would bet a million dollars if we could shut the media down for a year the so called divisions in this nation would disappear. We are being pushed by idiots on both sides and they like to keep the pot stirred. LLL may have had the right idea by shutting out the noise because that is what it mostly is....noise. It has been my experience living all over this country and traveling the world that by and large people are good and all they want to do is to be left alone and live their lives. Global politics and policies do not concern them in the least. The person who runs their town or village is all that they care about.

The divide between Red and Blue States when you live there and get to know the people is not that great. People in Kent County Delaware love to hunt, fish, eat fried chicken and watch NASCAR as much as the people who live in Montgomery Alabama. This nation would be a whole lot better if we concentrated on our similarities instead of our differences. I may bust on the South from time to time in my post but that is just to win an argument. The truth is I love Southern and Western culture.....the food, people and history. Americans are wonderful people and I just wish the media and the politicians would figure that out. We would be much better served if that were the case.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The South overall has become more of a bastion of what America is about. The concept of freedom, limited government, and observance of the constitution. While the Progressives have "graduated" beyond the reasonable, and adherance to the laws of the constitution, which are based upon man's nature and natural needs. It's ironic that the South is targeted for destruction by the Left and its myriad forces, since the South is now the stronghold of what America is about.

[yermom]

freedom as long as you love Jesus

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

freedom as long as you love Jesusas long as you love the constitution, and individual freedom, limited government, as specified by the constitution.

[yermom]

you know, unless you want to get gay married, or buy liquor on Sundays, or buy pr0n, or learn about evolution or anything else Jesus doesn't like

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Dogmatic Christian Rule has been a harsh master indeed, here in this oppressive United Domain of Jesus.


I will pray for you and all the oppressed, helpless victims of this evil Consortium of Religious Tyrants.

[okie52]

you know, unless you want to get gay married, or buy liquor on Sundays, or buy pr0n, or learn about evolution or anything else Jesus doesn't like

Yeah, intelligent design is being taught in schools instead of evolution. Jesus likes the cross and 10 commandments on public property....he likes prayer in school and before football games. Doubt Jesus likes alcohol Monday through Saturday. Porn? You really can't buy porn?

God/Jesus created Massachusetts and Barney frank for homos and gay marriage....praise him.

[yermom]

Yeah, intelligent design is being taught in schools instead of evolution. Jesus likes the cross and 10 commandments on public property....he likes prayer in school and before football games. Doubt Jesus likes alcohol Monday through Saturday. Porn? You really can't buy porn?

God/Jesus created Massachusetts and Barney frank for homos and gay marriage....praise him.

no, you can't buy the real thing in this state

it's pretty funny to see the Mexican standoff at the Red River on I-35. we have our gambling, they have their porn and high point beer. i think our vices are winning that war at the moment.

as for education... no one would ever try pushing creationism in schools, right?

http://io9.com/5976112/how-19+year+old-activist-zack-kopplin-is-making-life-hell-for-louisianas-creationists


Kopplin, who is studying history at Rice University, had good reason to be upset after the passing of the LSEA — an insidious piece of legislation that allows teachers to bring in their own supplemental materials when discussing politically controversial topics like evolution or climate change. Soon after the act was passed, some of his teachers began to not just supplement existing texts, but to rid the classroom of established science books altogether.

[okie52]

no, you can't buy the real thing in this state

it's pretty funny to see the Mexican standoff at the Red River on I-35. we have our gambling, they have their porn and high point beer. i think our vices are winning that war at the moment.

as for education... no one would ever try pushing creationism in schools, right?

http://io9.com/5976112/how-19+year+old-activist-zack-kopplin-is-making-life-hell-for-louisianas-creationists

Porn as in the internet? Hell they are just giving that stuff away.

The Red River standoff is pretty funny although I agree with you that Windstar smokes the adult video shops on the south side.

[yermom]

it doesn't really matter anymore, but it's still the law. they limit the magazines and videos one can buy. it's more the principle of the thing.

[FaninAma]

freedom as long as you love Jesus

I haven't been to church in years and I engage in prayer only during family get togethers over Christmas and Thanksgiving family meals yet I feel very comfortable in states and communities dominated by religious types....much more so than in communities where progressives want to dictate the behavior of responsible people and excuse the behavior of irresponsible people.

[yermom]

so as long as they aren't infringing on your freedoms, you are fine?

[Bourbon St Sooner]

In loosiana, you can get all the pron and alcheyhol you like. And feel free to spend all your money from filming swamp people in our casinos.

[yermom]

but talk about human evolution, and you might get fed to the gators ;)

[FaninAma]

so as long as they aren't infringing on your freedoms, you are fine?

So tell me what specific things religious groups have forced you to do lately that you disagreed with. I can list several things that secular, faceless government beaurocrats have forced me to do just today.

[yermom]

i already listed the laws.

i'm interested in the things the secular, faceless government bureaucrats forced you to do today that had anything to do with you being a Christian and disrupts your ability to practice the faith you choose in your private life

[FaninAma]

i already listed the laws.

i'm interested in the things the secular, faceless government bureaucrats forced you to do today that had anything to do with you being a Christian and disrupts your ability to practice the faith you choose in your private life
I never said it was because I was a Christian because I'm not.

Mandated:
Seat belts driving to work, mandate electronic medical records in clinic, couldn't do anything about the kids with bad asthma and whose parents smoke like trains and recieve Medicaid thanks to the government and my taxes.

I will keep you up to date on others.

[yermom]

what does that have to do with being "secular"?

my point was that you big government haters don't mind the government pushing faith based laws on non-believers

[FaninAma]

what does that have to do with being "secular"?

my point was that you big government haters don't mind the government pushing faith based laws on non-believers

The laws were put into place by secular beaurocrats and government representatives. The only legit issue you listed was the Sunday liquor law and I think that has to do more with the wishes of the liquor store lobby in the state than it does with religious groups. That is the same reason you can't get anything but 3.2 beer at the local 7-11.