Thursday, December 18, 2008

The Mex-Am vote: Well my break didn't last long.

Did anyone ever check how many Hispanics voted for Bush in 2004, according to the GSS? Even though Steve Sailer was debunking the exit poll-based 44% right after the election, I still see pundits give that number.

The GSS is also useful since we can look specifically at Mex-Ams--the Hispanic group that really matters here. It gives the number 37.4%.

Bush is held up us a model Hispanderer, and in his best year he can't even get two-fifths of the vote? And Juan "They're all children of God/Race is off the table" McAmnesty can't even manage one out of three? And every Republican strategist and even so-called right-wingers like Palin have all answered the question of what went wrong in 2008 the same way (in unison, like robots): We failed to get the Hispanic vote.

Just like all those black voters (also natural social conservatives), they'll be joining us Any Day Now.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

In about 15-20 more years, when the neo-cons work is done and they slither back across the aisle to their democratic home, a few Country Club Republicans, looking at the Democratic-majority-nation that it will be impossible not to see, will probably FINALLY see that they were snookered all along.



When you look into the backgrounds of some neo-cons (look at Conrad Black's wife, columnist Barbara Amiel----who used to literally be in the Communist Party**), you note that way too many of them were not only on the left, but the FAR LEFT before some weird "conversion" in the Reagan era. Sorry, I dont believe in miracles.

The "father" of neo-conservatism (if you could call any little weakling of a human being like Irving Kristol anything masculine), Irving Kristol openly stated his goal was to drag the right "kicking and screaming" leftwards and admitted neo-conservatism was subversive from the start.


The neo-cons promise to big business was cheap Mexican labor. Big business will have to deal with Mexican VOTERS who tend toward the left when they get the chance post-amnesty in a few years. Taxes on higher incomes will immediately go up, taxes on dividends and other "unearned incomes" will immediately go up, our new Mexican citizens will be getting either unionized or joining existing unions, and our wealthy will be left asking "what they hell happened?, it was going so well back in 2005?". We (lifelong Republicans like myself) wont be able to win a presidency to save our lives!



Barack Obama, who hasn't even proved he was born here yet, has no record of achievement whatsoever, and opened his political career at the house of a Weatherman, and who sat in Jerimiah Wright's God-DAMN-America church for 20 years........................WON THE PRESIDENCY BY 7 MILLION VOTES!!!!!

What is the neo-cons response? Lets focus on a group that voted 67% for Obama, and keep giving the finger to the ONLY GROUP THAT WE WON.


No sir Ron, neo-cons are a spy-movement of former leftists attempting to drag the Republican party so leftward that they are going to be a center-LEFT party in 20 years to merely be comptetitive. Think of how far left the GOP will have to pander to promise young Mexicans, with an average IQ of 89, to equate with the jobs, scholarsips, and set-asides that the Democrats will gladly offer at the expense of whites? You can't move that far left. Who will win the Hispanic YOUTH, the GOP or Democrats? Its stupid to even ask this, of course the Dems will outpander and outspend to win this block.




***On Barbara Amiel, supposed right-wing columnist for right wing website Jewish World Review:
"Amiel was an active communist, and was a delegate in 1962 to the Soviet-organised World Festival of Youth and Students in Helsinki, Finland.[1]"


.......yep, that sure sounds like a "conservative in her BONES" doesn't it? What a fool William F. Buckley must have been to allow these slimeballs to infiltrate his magazine and take it over.

Anonymous said...

The OP and the anonymous comment look right on to me. The list of "ex"-leftists among the neocons is quite long, and the list of ex-Trotskyites among them is much more impressive (though necessarily shorter).

Irving Kristol - ex-Trotskyite
Christopher Hitchens - ex-Trotskyite
Norman Podhoretz - ex-socialist
Stephen Schwartz - ex-Trotskyite
David Frum - ex-socialist

Oddly enough, someone who spends a lot of time shouting about neocons being big jerks is Lyndon LaRouche. ... Who is also an ex-Trotskyite, and who differs from the neoconservatives exactly how?

Whiskey said...

George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Ronald Reagan, Andrew McCarthy (NRO version, not Pretty in Pink one), John Bolton, David Mamet, Tom Wolfe, Sarah Palin, Saxby Chambliss, and Alan Keyes are all neo-conservatives. As are Thomas Sowell and Mark Steyn.

Neo-conservatism: strong military, whack your enemies, defend freedom, celebrate traditions. Where GWB went wrong is moving away from that to "compassionate conservatism" and placating liberal enemies.

Most neo-conservatives are neither ex leftists or communists but ones who have embraced military action against jihadist enemies as required in today's world where technology (either the AK-47 or nukes) give the attackers world-wide reach without any meaningful retaliation otherwise. It's not as if AQ or ISI or any other group/wing are scared of UN letters of regret or sanctions or a big speech.

Amb. Bolton is a noted neo-con. Neither leftist nor marxist in background, either.

togo said...

Neoconservatism was a post-1968 movement of leftists who were repelled by the McGovernite turn of the Democratic Party. To call Reagan a neocon is absurd since he was giving passionate speeches for Goldwater when the founding neocons were firmly on the other side.

I wonder if the Reagan administration would have been more successful(i.e. genuinely conservative)domestically if he had repelled the neocon boarding party?

But then he would have been tarred as an anti-Semite.


Neoconservatism has, of course, has become the sole "intellectual tendency" in the GOP so, either consciously or unthinkingly, virtually every GOP officeholder is a neoconservative. A few noble exceptions are grouped around Ron Paul.


The late Sam Francis:
http://arcofcc.freeservers.com/Documents/neoc.html
(...)
James Burnham, a major intellectual leader of the conservatism of the 1950s and 1960s, pointed out in an essay in National Review in 1972 that while the intellectuals who espoused neo-conservatism might have broken formally with “liberal doctrine,” they nevertheless retained in their thinking “what might be called the emotional gestalt of liberalism, the liberal sensitivity and temperament.” In other words, even though, neo-conservatives no longer consciously believed in certain liberal ideas, they still showed the habits of thought and emotional reactions that those ideas instilled. Burnham’s words have proved prophetic, as it became increasingly clear in the course of the neo-conservative alliance with the Old Right that their conversion away from liberalism was in many respects merely superficial.
(...)

togo said...

For the record, here are two lenghty deconstructions of neoconservatism:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j081803.html

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001679.html

They are good even if you find
either (or both) Raimondo or Auster distasteful.

Emmanuel Goldstein said...

Of course James Burnham was also an ex-trotskyite.

togo said...

Of course James Burnham was also an ex-trotskyite.

The founding group at National Review included many ex-Communists, but I think Burnham was the only ex-Trot.

Burnham was a pretty bloodthirsty cold warrior who also embraced the welfare state, so some think of him as a proto-neocon. Below a link to arguments against that notion: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/apr/21/00015/

Whiskey said...

Buckley, an ex-Trotskyite?

Besides, citing anti-war or the other lunatic sites filled with Buchanon-esque isolationism and fantasies is not particularly helpful. The hard left and hard right meet in the lunatic extremes blaming "the Jews" for "war."

This is nothing more than the traditional extension of anti-semitism among some segments of traditional ethnic Catholics. Buchanon being another Father Coughlin (pro-Hitler agitator in the 1930's).

Lunatic isolationism has always had it's appeal and has never worked. Andrew Jackson might be called the first neo-con (his "invasion" of Spanish Florida pursuing the Seminole armed and aided by the Spanish created the SAME types of furors in Congress and the Press by the SAME types -- isolationist German-Irish Catholics in PA, and WASP aristocrats in New England and New York).

Even it's foremost proponent, Thomas Jefferson, finally saw the futility of appeasing Muslim pirates (fully 20% of the Federal budget was devoted to payoffs that didn't work -- more Americans and ships were held hostage every year). Finally, Jefferson, acceded to constructing a huge navy to whack the Muslim pirates, a task finally accomplished by Monroe. [That's where the Shores of Tripoli comes from in the Marine Anthem.]

Like I said, Bolton, Bush, Cheney, and Reagan were neither Jewish nor leftists. Reagan's Beirut adventure was pretty neo-con, his big problem was running away like a Dem/Liberal not standing fast and punishing Iran and Syria and Hezbollah. His turning about face got him nothing either, just as America without a strong Navy to punish the North African Muslim pirates had to pay out ever greater amounts of money and could not get most ships and men free from bondage/slavery.

This is NOT anything new, it's been part of America since the beginning, and since the beginning America has faced both non-State and Muslim enemies taking hostages, demanding payoffs, and being defeated only by "neo-con" policies (which are really Jacksonian policies of whacking but good our enemies so they stop attacking us).

If want to identify the original Neo-Con he's on the Twenty Dollar Bill.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

Whiskey, Andrew Jackson was not a neocon, he was a militarily aggressive nationalist. So too are Cheney, Rumsfeld, and John Bolton.

All three don't believe in humanitarian interventions in place like Sudan or Congo like neocons do (Bolton is indifferent to whether Iraq becomes a democracy, he has suggested breaking up Iraq into three pieces if the government remains unstable.)

Reagan was not a neocon, he was a mix of old WASP-Eisenhower foreign policy realism and nationalism. Having some neocons in the lower bowels of the State Department during the 80's does not mean Reagan was a neocon.

Both you and the paleocons get the term neocon confused with officials who are actually nationalists and old WASP Republican realists.

Neocons want to pretend Reagan was a neocon to make neoconservatism look good.

Paleocons pretend Reagan was a neocon because they think anyone who isn't an isolationist is a neocon.

Both Paleos and Neos are wrong and both need to get their terminology right in order to stop confusing everyone.

Anonymous said...

Buchanan, whose name is quite easy to spell once ou get the hang of it, has a political philosophy diametrically opposite to Hitler's. Abortion, military expansion, republicanism, gun control, whether Polish conservative Catholics deserve to have their country invaded ... they seem like the pretty much opposites on every issue. Thus linking Buchanan to Coughlin misses the mark by far - the only thing they have in common is religion.

togo said...

Andrew Jackson might be called the first neo-con (his "invasion" of Spanish Florida pursuing the Seminole armed and aided by the Spanish created the SAME types of furors in Congress and the Press by the SAME types -- isolationist German-Irish Catholics in PA, and WASP aristocrats in New England and New York).

Andrew Jackson(A slaveholder and the author of "The Trail of Tears")
a neocon hero!

No, this is pure BS.The neocons despise pre-1965 America-with the exceptions (for obvious reasons)of Lincoln and FDR.

You're trying to avoid the fact that the successful Sixties Cultural Revolution(1965-71)eventually made the US into a different country-radically different from what existed before. The Founders(formerly the Founding Fathers), and every POTUS prior to Lincoln, amount to less than pimple on the Sainted Plagiarist's a** in today's USA.

BTW, I'd like to think that I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

P.S. FWIW, I'm one-eighth Cherokee and not WN. Said only to preempt
ad hominem.