Great piece in the Wall Street Journal today about Jeb Bush. I’m in total agreement with Jeb on a lot of issues including immigration:
Republicans must also clean up their act on immigration, Mr. Bush insists. Last year, he says they “set a tone” that pushed Hispanic voters away. “The tone of the debate reached a point that was very damning to the Republican Party, and the evidence is in. The chest pounders lost.”
Mr. Bush supports immigration reform as championed by his brother and John McCain, which would allow illegals already in this country to stay. “Politics has to be about ideas and values and aspirations.” he says. “It shouldn’t be about anger and preying on people’s emotions. You can’t lead a mob.”
H/T: Hot Air
All well and good these lovely humanistic generalizations. I have no love of personal attacks.
But ideas do matter and on a couple of ideas I do disagree with the governor.
The anger in America and in a good bit of the Republican base against McCain’s and President Bush’s immigration reform was not anti Hispanic or irrational. It was because this country will perish as we know it unless we get control of our borders and our growth of illegals. I see nothing prejudiced in this stance. And I daresay a lot of Hispanics might even feel a sympathy for this view.
Obama may have run a successful campaign and be a great guy, but I disagree with his take on America in almost every particular and it doesn’t make me a bad guy to feel that way or to assert it.
As for education reform, I want to recommend a marvelous article in National Review 2/23 issue on manufacturing and its history in this country and why we have to reform our education system to keep up with new ideas. Governor Jeb Bush might want to read that one. It validates what he is quoted as saying here.
Once again, well said Honey. I’ve had to tell numerous acquaintances that my being an immigrant shouldn’t automatically make me a proponent of open borders. And my desire for a rational immigration policy doesn’t make me an anti-Hispanic bigot. It’s all about common sense. I remember working an an immigration officer on the Mexican border and having an educated Mexican with an engineering degree lament that he wanted to immigrate to the US, but couldn’t, yet, thousands of unskilled migrants could enter illegally and eventually be permitted to stay. That experience taught me all I needed to know about immigration policy and how it should be structured to help this country. I agree that the message has to be intelligently articulated, but it can’t be denied because of fear that it will drive people away.
Anybody who has heard Tom Tancredo speak knows he’s a bigot. He attacked my fair city as being third world. Secondly, whether we have hate in hearts or not is not the issue. It’s the perception. Ronald Reagan was perceived as a war monger who would bring about a nuclear catastrophe, though in the end his policies greatly reduced the chances of an all nuclear war with the Soviets. You can’t ignore perception and say we’re not hate mongers because that’s exactly how the other team is painting us and guess what, we need those votes.
I’ve written an essay about how Republicans should handle immigration reform. Please read it and tell me where I am wrong.
Fine, you touched on my pet peeve, information management – as you say, ‘perception’. Republicans and conservatives get their asses kicked in this area on an almost daily basis, and that’s why we floundered in 2006 and 2008. Even the previous elections were a mighty struggle to get the message out and hold on to governance. We no longer have a “Great Communicator” like Reagan who could explain issues in a way the common could understand, and thus overcome the liberal/left domination of TV, print, academia, and Hollywood.
Correct, surveys continually show that Hispanics and Blacks hold traditional, conservative views, yet they overwhelmingly vote Democratic. Heck, those same surveys show that the nation as a whole is over 70% moderate to conservative, yet look at what just happened, with the election of the most left-wing President ever (although some could argue that Roosevelt was as bad). McCain’s views on immigration were moderate, but it got him no-where with Hispanics – the message was drowned out and the majority went back to their standard DEM vote. Therefore, based on historical results, you can’t blame the so-called nativists for some of their fears about the Hispanic/DEM connection, and what that could portend for the US if it continues.
Bottom-line, is that the policy has to be rational and good for the US, not based on fear from one side and hand-wringing from the other. If you give amnesty, it will only motivate another wave of illegality. Reagan gave amnesty in the mid-80s and established laws to allow immigrants to come work, then return to their countries. The laws were ignored by both sides (foreigners and US companies) and 20 years later we are on the verge of granting amnesty again. The policy has to be rational and enforceable, otherwise it’s nothing but platitudes that will not serve this country well in the long run. Oh, and we better improve at ‘perception management’ otherwise it is hopeless when it comes to this issue.
Nothing in my essay advocates for an open borders policy. We need to get ahead of the debate. Much like they say “only Nixon could go to China” it’s up to Republicans to SOLVE the immigration problem. But deporting 12 million people doesn’t solve jack and neither does building a wall without dealing with the illegales that are already here. More than 40% of Hispanics voted for GWB in 2004. He carried a majority of them in his reelection bid for Texas governor. We CAN win among Hispanics, much easier than we can win among blacks. The Dems have a stranglehold on Hispanics because we’re on CNN talking about how they’re all rapists, thieves and welfare recipients. We need to lead with a coherent comprehensive policy.
I am against politics that defers to a group to win their votes.
I prefer a simple aticulation of free market principles, family values , America protecting its own sovereignty rather than deferring to outside agencies like the U. N. or the world court, defense against our enemies, strict constructionist judges, and less government, and lower taxes, and more individual freedom and responsibility, and less reliance on the federal government.
Message is all that’s needed.
In the end the reason Reagan won and the R\reason the Contract for America swayed was because they articulated clearly what we were about. I don’t remember any identity politics in those cases. I hate this – poor against rich, me nice, you bad business.
Ideas are all that matters. Let’s stop nominating weak middling candidates and nominate strong articulaters of what Americans really want.
Although nowadays, Americans seem to want the suicide of our country as we know it.