A lot of hand wringing has been done over the poor showing of the Republican Party in California for the last few election cycles. The Republican Party has become regional in nature. Rural counties remain red but denser population areas vary in their shades of blue. Orange County is destined to become purple very, very soon. Some parts are already Democratic Party strongholds.
The GOP has a Hispanic voter problem. This is no secret. However, the local GOP apparatus has been slow to recognize this problem exists in Orange County as well. The "OC" will eventually become a Hispanic majority county. Yet, no substantive outreach is being done with this important segment of the vote.
The donor segment of the GOP has, at times, funded Latino candidates. But only in Latino neighborhoods. This fails to recognize that virtually every neighborhood in the county has Latino voters. A subtle racism exists when political organizations believe ethnic voters only exists in enclaves.
The GOP's road back to relevance starts with the Hispanic vote. The worst thing it can do is to tell potential candidates to "wait their turn" or suggest they should run in Santa Ana. Only a proactive candidate recruitment and support effort will turn things around.
Political parties and their popularity are cyclical. Republicans were on the outs following the Watergate Scandal in the 70s. The future of the Republican Party in California rests with the rising Hispanic vote. But will it take the "camino" less traveled?
Against this background, with millions of illegal immigrants from Mexico coming into the country, the question is why wouldn't modern day, pro-Christian Republicans immediately tap into that resevoir of voters and embrace that block? The answer: Republicans overlooked this aspect to focus on race, language, anchorbabies (an obvious consequence of the Constitution as it was written) and drug cartel violence. It's not too late to court them, but it may be some time before they decide to buy whatever it is Republicans are selling.
Now to her point "it's folks like you who are turning politics into a racial competition when it shouldn't be." She can't seriously believe that it isn't already. That's quite naive. Were you in the country on November 6th? Ken, is talking about inclusion and you're condemning him for it? It's funny to me that you point your finger at him for bringing up the issue, but then tell him that he should be doing more of it! How about thinking a little more before you type?
People seem to claim that they want: A color blind society. But from the other sides of their mouths they want power distributed based on race, particularly to their race. I all ask if for people to be honest. Instead of claiming you want a color blind society - just claim that you want your particular ethnicity to have more power in society. But you can't have both. They contradict one another. So pick one and only one. That's all I ask. And I think that's a reasonable request. :^)
The arrogance that only one party cares, assuming that it does in the first place, about family values, or equal opportunity, or that the massive expansion of government over the last thirty years was all done by the other guys. "The history of the Republican party is inclusion and opportunity." Yes, in the 1860s it was. In the 1960s, it was too, but not in the Southern states, and it has not been since. http://bit.ly/pmGzje It has been particularly exclusionary in California where they have driven themselves into irrelevance. The hunt for heretics is on, and it is not stopping till the party implodes. In that, Mr. Webb, I think the Democrats would welcome the GOP doubling down on their current strategy. Whatever that may be. Ken (the author) at least recognizes this, his only complaint seems to be a personal one. The problem Ken, is not of running Lopezes as GOP candidates in Lake Forest, it is one of the GOP also running *for* the Lopezes as they do for the Webbs. Policy, not 'demographics'. George the Younger did fine with that demographic in 2004 which remains the only presidential election in the last six where the GOP won the popular vote. For starters, one can try not bringing up "Hispanics" with "illegals" in every context as if they were synonyms.
Facts are pesky things - they don't go away even if you ignore them. :^)
When Moonbeam took first steps to reform welfare. Yes he did, you can look it up http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jul/28/welfare-capital-of-the-us/ Which means you can now call Schwarzenegger a RINO, for Moonbeam did what the GOP governor could not with the same dem legislature. [I told you about the hunt for heretics] We could look at what caused this, but nah, do go on with the GOP pitch, it is working already. I only wish people were REALLY leaving like you said, because then they can move to states like Idaho, Texas, or one of those other ten states with Romney's chosen 47% http://www.theamericanconservative.com/where-do-the-47-percent-live/ Or, maybe California can get its fair share of federal tax revenue and let those red states take responsibility for themselves: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/26/blog-posting/red-state-socialism-graphic-says-gop-leaning-state/ Pesky, indeed. "democrats are attacting more parasites and chasing away productive citizens." And you are still here? Hmmm Oh wait, one more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-29/california-defies-lower-tax-texas-in-creating-more-jobs.html So let's focus on the GOP pitch: Hispanics are sucking away votes because free stuff, life begins at rape, ... The California GOP will be back in no time.
You failed to respond to the fact that in a democrat majority California we have 12% of the nation's total population and 33% of the nation's welfare population. Instead you went off on a tangent unrelated to my factual comment. Facts are pesky things. They hang around even if you ignore them or wish them to go away!! :^)
I guess the next stop for you is Disneyland. Like Romney after his victory lap. Maybe that's how the California GOP will come back. Candidates claiming victory and going to Disneyland. With their pesky facts and all. ROMNEY RYAN PALIN 2016. Smaller, smarter, simpler. Be well, and say hi to Mickey
I am no fan of Arnold. I think he's just another fraud. And I am no fan of the Republican party. I think most are phonies who promote the 'one-party system'. And I belong to neither of the two parties that make up the 'one-party system'. And I supported neither Romney or Obama. So you're barking up the wrong tree. Now why don't you respond directly to the FACT that California has 12% of the nation's population and 33% of the nation's welfare population? I bet you're in favor of those numbers too, aren't ya??? heh.
You are going to need to find another villain. Public unions are not the problem. They never were. You are going to need to learn to compromise.
"Brown" was not a dog whistle for you to jump on Brown's actions, it was to point out that Brown actually did something to address welfare, whereas his predecessor did not. "You mentioned Republicans were not for inclusion in the Southern States in the 1960's. Go back and check it out," I did. I even cited a link showing EXACTLY the votes that were cast. What I noted in it was that you have to go with the people in the party and how they voted. Blaming the Democrats for what Thurmond did in the 60s is perfectly fine, as long as you recognize that the same Thurmond was a Republican in the latter parts of his career and wanted to hang to his ideology. I even tallied those votes so that there would be no confusion. Go back and check that out before you say "Go back and check it out, the Southern States were Democratic and very anti-anybody not white."
You guys really need to resist the urge to vilify everyone who doesn't agree with you. It is never productive to have civil conversations only with those who share your viewpoint.
Aw, isn't the hunt for heretics sweet? For someone who professes that, you have ignored the whole topic that Ken was talking about to jump on the GOP talking points. Not to mention the simple fact that basically tests your unfounded assertion. If Arnie (R - Family Values) governed over a state, is he teeny-bit responsible for the affairs of the state, especially when Moonbeam showed that it is possible to reform welfare with the same dems? "You just don't have to integrity to call a duck a duck. That's all." OK, ducking is ducking, and you were ducking. You cannot stay on topic, make wild assertions, forget to read the cited links that go debunking your claims, but claim victory. Here's a hint: When you cite a statistic (like X% of California which is Y% of the population of the country is on welfare) a. You need to source it. (but that's OK, I found one source) b. ... that's it, it is a stat. If you further claim that statistic is caused by Z, then a. You have to show that Z caused it b. You can expect more comments. So integrity-wise you failed there, since you simply argued by making an assertion. Show your work. But back to your California GOP style victory, any new rides at Disneyland, oh not-productive-citizen who would move out if it were a productive one?
I think you have won over or converted one more mind in factchecker. Might work better if you called him a 47 percenter as well. ROMNEY RYAN 2016, then? Because if one is to really believe what you were saying just the day before the elections (http://bit.ly/TfW8oL): "President Romney will bring to the table a history of leadership in business, in government and with the Olympics. President Romney will have been elected based on his promise to work with both sides of the aisle to get our economy back on track. This election is a clear choice between a proven failure and a leader with a vision. Mitt Romney has a map, has a plan, knows how to navigate and understands the sea in which he finds himself. Leadership will save this country. Vote for change. Vote to give this country a chance to grow again. Vote for Romney." Or do conservatives like yourself not stay true to their beliefs?
All that remains is getting them back in power in California. Which is what Ken was focused on. Perhaps they should ignore "the laws of math" and the growing Hispanic population/changing demographics, because all those people are just oPhone wanting moochers, eh?
http://www2.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Private-and-public-sector-jobs1.png Also, public sector jobs in the US as measured as a percent of the US population were last this low back in 1984 when Ronald Reagan was in office. While suggesting that Obama is taking the country in the wrong direction with bigger and bigger government, they seem to be oblivious to the notion that Obama may have inadvertently already brought US public sector employment levels to the Republican's desired destination (1984). Perhaps it's like wishing upon a star that all your dreams come true, only to find out later that your wish was granted by your sworn enemy.