How To Turn The Hispanic Tide Toward The GOP

[beerftw]

Which representatives voted against the Patriot Act and its extension and what party did they belong to? What groups opposed the Patriot Act and what side of the political spectrum did they belong to? Who demagogued the Patriot Act and said that anybody who opposed it was "soft on terrorism".

Sorry your narrative doesn't work.

well if you went by vote,democrats in both the house and senate overwhelminly supported the patriot act,as did republicans.yeah the demcrats had more opposing it,but still an extreme minority.most only opposed the patriot act after they voted yay,and still voted for its reinstation.

infact in 2001 there was only one senator to oppose it,and he didnt oppose it based on spying,he opposed it because it lacked checks and balances and judicial oversight,believing that no checks would lead to abuse,which he was right.

 

[Drake McHugh]

One easy way. Don't vote to deport the deferred Dreamers like Steve King's amendment proposed(and which all but 6 Republicans voted for. Look,I disagreed with Obama's executive order when he did that. Still,what is done is done,and it is wrong to try and take something away from people who signed up for the program.

 

[greyhat]

The main reason why Democrats will be who overwhelmingly benefit by increasing numbers of Latino voters is that polls show that an overwhelming majority of Latinos believe the government isn't big enough and does not have enough in the way of welfare and social programs. In short, economically the majority of Latinos lean hard left.

That's not true at all; generally Latinos are in line with conservative social & economic principles, with variances depending on country of origin. The largest subset of Latinos in the US are Mexicans who care about some issues, like immigration, more than others, say Argentines or Brazilians. Cuban-Americans don't have the same point of reference to such an issue; the same is true of Puerto Ricans who are US Citizens by birth. Cubans have special treatment due to the Cuba-American Cold War issues, so an issue like immigration isn't priority; the Embargo may be. There are other many variances for other countries and subsets of course.

That being said, Latinos like Asians etc, can be turned off by increasingly xenophobic messages from the far right of the GOP, something Dems love- the whole episode during the Republican primaries is a good example. Rick Perry was demonized as were others like John Huntsman & Gingrich, for what are fairly reasonable ideas. Bachman and Santorum were praised. Romney had to shift just to get by, which didn't help him nationally in the end.

Contrary to popular belief Latinos are not a monolithic group. The idea that they lean hard left on economics is also contrary to reality. Most people immigrate to the US for opportunity not a welfare check; immigrants are very entrepreneurial as in their native lands the welfare state doesn't exist so the expectation of a welfare check isn't true.

Where the welfare state has been tried, Cuba and Venezuela for example, the results have been an economic wreck. Uruguay may be the only country with a functioning hard left state in LA, however it is very small (pop 3 million). Ecuador and Bolivia are stuck in a center-left rut, yet Chile which has consistently led LA in HDI and is highly entrepreneurial is thriving.

Bottom line is you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about; the GOP can reclaim the Latino vote but only if they apply common sense to their approach.

 

[TheNextEra]

I can tell you how the GOP isn't going to get hispanic votes. By insulting them.

 

[jaeger19]

Oh well then we'll tear up the Treaty of Guadalupe, rename Texas " Los Estado de Santa Anna ", wait 5 years, and then we'll ALL imigrate illegally into the New United States.

Wow, being a Texan I can hardly wait !!

Okaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy....:doh

 

[jaeger19]

texas really doesnt belong in that list for many descendants.

both the spanish and the mexican governments had open immigration laws for texas then,because the state was literally empty and barren,apparently no one in span or mexico really wanted it at first.later immigration for people from the united states to tejas was banned,as us immigrants were making up the bulk of the population.the ban on immigration caused a revolt among those who were already granted land and citizenship,at first wanting texas to become its own sovereign state then later its own country,while mexico really only wanted tejas because it was part of santa anas plan to build mexico as a single unified country.

california and arizona had lots of gold,timber and other recources,it makes sense why they want them back,but texas was originally spanish then later mexican territory no one wanted until itgot filled with people from the united states.

Still on the list since Texas was still settled by Hispanic people before it became a US state and their descendents are not second generation immigrants as the OP implied.

 

[jaeger19]

Then you need to get out of politics, because it is all about impression not substance. I don't like it, I'm not saying what you are saying is wrong, I'm saying what you're saying doesn't matter. Slogans not substance are what wins, you can sit up there on your perch and we can discuss the purity of Burke and the demise of his influence in the conservative movement we can then go on at length and try to legitimize (why we'd want to, allah only knows)the libertarian strain which is counter to conservative principles, we can go on and discuss the socio-political geographic landscape of the SW in the 18th and 19th Century but all of this is nothing but mental masterbation.

The Chicago Machine has gone national. I grew up with the Machine. I know how the Machine operates, and if you think going on at length spouting obscure knowledge which half the people won't pay attention to and the other half won't give a damn about, will mean something -- have at it, pound that sand into glass.

The only way to beat the Machine is to play by the Machine's rules. The GOP is lost right now, the lick of common sense schpeal is played out. That was proven with Obama's reelection.

While you're trying to build a hybrid GOP of substance and ignoring the politics of the Machine, the Dems will be relegating you common sense lickers further and further to the sidelines of irrelevancy.

Yeah.. pardon me.. but aren't YOU the guy that suggested the way to get the Hispanic vote was to make a comparison between other governments and Obama? What slogan do you think that makes... "Join the GOP you dummies?"

The fact is this... we lost... two elections now. So what we have been doing.. did not work.. and does not work. And another fact.... we did not lose because republicans stayed home. We lost because we lost independents and moderates that voted for Obama.

So.. to win.. we need to GET BACK the people that voted for Obama.... and quite frankly, telling them their stupid, or takers, or any other derogatory term only serves to alienate them further.

What we need is to stop propagating the slogans, the hate speech and the outright lies. True.. every voter probably does not know advanced economics.... but they can easily discern between a party that cares about the economy, jobs, etc and one that wants to vilify immigrants, gay people.,women and other minorities..

 

[greyhat]

Yeah.. pardon me.. but aren't YOU the guy that suggested the way to get the Hispanic vote was to make a comparison between other governments and Obama? What slogan do you think that makes... "Join the GOP you dummies?"

The fact is this... we lost... two elections now. So what we have been doing.. did not work.. and does not work. And another fact.... we did not lose because republicans stayed home. We lost because we lost independents and moderates that voted for Obama.

So.. to win.. we need to GET BACK the people that voted for Obama.... and quite frankly, telling them their stupid, or takers, or any other derogatory term only serves to alienate them further.

What we need is to stop propagating the slogans, the hate speech and the outright lies. True.. every voter probably does not know advanced economics.... but they can easily discern between a party that cares about the economy, jobs, etc and one that wants to vilify immigrants, gay people.,women and other minorities..

Now that's hitting the nail on the head!! You sir are f'n right! Please pass this along to the far right wackos.

 

[ChezC3]

Yeah.. pardon me.. but aren't YOU the guy that suggested the way to get the Hispanic vote was to make a comparison between other governments and Obama? What slogan do you think that makes... "Join the GOP you dummies?"

The fact is this... we lost... two elections now. So what we have been doing.. did not work.. and does not work. And another fact.... we did not lose because republicans stayed home. We lost because we lost independents and moderates that voted for Obama.

So.. to win.. we need to GET BACK the people that voted for Obama.... and quite frankly, telling them their stupid, or takers, or any other derogatory term only serves to alienate them further.

What we need is to stop propagating the slogans, the hate speech and the outright lies. True.. every voter probably does not know advanced economics.... but they can easily discern between a party that cares about the economy, jobs, etc and one that wants to vilify immigrants, gay people.,women and other minorities..

YOU seem to be the only one thinking people are dummies. I am the one who is just telling you the way it is. We didn't lose the last two elections because we vilified immigrants or gay people, or women or other minorities, for a person who claims to be with the GOP you sure are singing the Dems narrative like a rock star. We lost the last two elections because you have two GOP candidates who weren't conservative. McCain and Romney aren't conservatives, they're RINO's. Worse than that, they're multi millionaires. We got millions of millions of people out of work and we put a Mob Princess's husband and a Hedge Fund Tycoon up for candidacy? Who's the dummies? Hell, I voted for Obama over McCain!

We need conservative candidates, the people are just itching for them. Not numbskull neocons and corporatists but real, honest to goodness, CONSERVATIVE candidates. If it was just as you said, if we lost because of gays, immigrants, minorities, women, etc, etc, than a PROVEN candidate who holds those positions which you claim the people are just clamouring for would have done a whole helluva allot better than he did. Who is that? The guy I voted for in the last election Gary Johnson. Here's a former GOP 2x term limited governor who has an all-star resume. What happen? They threw him on the bench and said "Sit and be quiet!" So what he do? Went 3rd party and got, what? 1% of the vote? Now say he stayed GOP and won the Nom, what would have happen? He'd have picked up maybe, maybe 10-15% of the middle all the while at conservative estimates he would have lost no less than 50% of the GOP base. They would have stayed home. Obama would have won a la Ronnie Reagan or LBJ style and the Party would have been crushed and a whole helluva allot more damage would be done to this country than what is currently transpiring.

The way to get them back is to not tell them they are stupid, takers, or any other derogatory names, no one but you is suggesting that. The way to get them back is to swing hard Right, and I'm talking HARD and then move to a center Right position. Center of the Right, not center right, just to clarify.

The way to surely lose them forever is to play the matching game with Dems and to take the completely asinine Ayn Rand approach to economics. People don't want wild wild west economics and a do as you please social free for all. The middle wants what the middle has always wanted, security, stability, reassurance, and yes hope.

Now, getting back to the point of this which was tactics not ideology, have you ever read "True Believer" by Eric Hoffer? Obama and Axelrod have. So much so that the video coverage for the 2008 election would be irrefutable evidence in an open and shut case if Hoffer's estate ever want to file a plagiarism suit against them.

If you haven't you should read it, then read Edward Bernays' "Propaganda". Once you get a grip on the nature of Mass Movements and how you can manipulate them then you might get creative and understand the underlying premise of my OP.

As it is, it seems you just want a GOP who are Democrats who don't give a rat's ass about the poor. The Dem's already do that perfectly. They're just good at making their supporters think otherwise.

 

[greyhat]

Gary Johnson 2016! Johnson/Huntsman

 

[Drake McHugh]

Yeah.. pardon me.. but aren't YOU the guy that suggested the way to get the Hispanic vote was to make a comparison between other governments and Obama? What slogan do you think that makes... "Join the GOP you dummies?"

The fact is this... we lost... two elections now. So what we have been doing.. did not work.. and does not work. And another fact.... we did not lose because republicans stayed home. We lost because we lost independents and moderates that voted for Obama.

So.. to win.. we need to GET BACK the people that voted for Obama.... and quite frankly, telling them their stupid, or takers, or any other derogatory term only serves to alienate them further.

What we need is to stop propagating the slogans, the hate speech and the outright lies. True.. every voter probably does not know advanced economics.... but they can easily discern between a party that cares about the economy, jobs, etc and one that wants to vilify immigrants, gay people.,women and other minorities..

With all due respect,Romney did not in any way run a hateful campaign. Obama did. He very effectively used the grievance groups and identity politics. Not bashing him for it,it's politics. Romney treated Obama with kid gloves,and was also hampered because of Romneycare from attacking Obamacare. He also did not work hard enough. Obama made 3 stops to the Milwaukee area the last two weeks of the campaign. Biden was a constant presence. Romney/Ryan were not around much at all. You also need to acknowledge that incumbents usually win,and too many Republicans forgot that fact. Obama was in a very similar situation to what Bush was,barely hanging on,but still ultimately,like Bush was in 04,with the advantage.
Look,I think Republicans need to do some things different. We didn't lose because we were "mean".

 

[greyhat]

We didn't lose because we were "mean".

Tell that to the Hispanics who were turned off by the GOPs anti-Dreamers stance..or the other crazy shyt the Dems were able to fish for from the audio vaults of the GOP primaries

 

[head of joaquin]

With all due respect,Romney did not in any way run a hateful campaign.

Calling 47% of Americans leeches is pretty hateful, not to mention false, especially to group of lazy millionaires, except in teapartybizarroworldy

Now, watch as you repeat and defend his hate speech. It's what conservatives do!

 

[head of joaquin]

Oh well then we'll tear up the Treaty of Guadalupe, rename Texas " Los Estado de Santa Anna ", wait 5 years, and then we'll ALL imigrate illegally into the New United States.

Wow, being a Texan I can hardly wait !!

Yeah, because in GOP bizarroworld, those are the only two options.

 

[beerftw]

Still on the list since Texas was still settled by Hispanic people before it became a US state and their descendents are not second generation immigrants as the OP implied.

but hispanics in texas also favored rejecting mexican rules as did most seperate mexican states at the time.mexicos original constitution granted states rights,and had mexico seperated into states and territories,while later santa ana wanted to unify mexico into a single nation.

even further the hispanic population of texas prior to us immigration was almost non existent,mexicans didnt want to go there,and only the tejas natives who were few and far between lived there.it was so bad that mexico made it rule that for commiting a crime you go to jail or go to texas.

a region that no one wanted to go but us immigrants,and a region that wanted to seperate from mexico even with its hispanic population,in order to become either part of the united states or its own sovereign country(it became the latter first).

 

[Drake McHugh]

Tell that to the Hispanics who were turned off by the GOPs anti-Dreamers stance..or the other crazy shyt the Dems were able to fish for from the audio vaults of the GOP primaries

I didn't say they didn't do some things wrong. If you ever read my posts you will know that I have said that before. Just tired of the "Republicans are mean,that is why they lost" memo.

 

[Drake McHugh]

Calling 47% of Americans leeches is pretty hateful, not to mention false, especially to group of lazy millionaires, except in teapartybizarroworldy

Now, watch as you repeat and defend his hate speech. It's what conservatives do!

By that argument,Obama is awfully hateful. Remember his "sticking to guns and religion statement"? That is as condescending as it gets. Romney was really dumb to say it,but not for the reason extreme fringe people like you think. He was talking like we are a society where "class"structure is always stagnant,and people are stuck permanently where they are. That is what people like you stand for. A conservative should not talk that way,but since he wasn't it makes sense.

 

[jaeger19]

YOU seem to be the only one thinking people are dummies. I am the one who is just telling you the way it is. We didn't lose the last two elections because we vilified immigrants or gay people, or women or other minorities, for a person who claims to be with the GOP you sure are singing the Dems narrative like a rock star. We lost the last two elections because you have two GOP candidates who weren't conservative. McCain and Romney aren't conservatives, they're RINO's. Worse than that, they're multi millionaires. We got millions of millions of people out of work and we put a Mob Princess's husband and a Hedge Fund Tycoon up for candidacy? Who's the dummies? Hell, I voted for Obama over McCain!

We need conservative candidates, the people are just itching for them. Not numbskull neocons and corporatists but real, honest to goodness, CONSERVATIVE candidates. If it was just as you said, if we lost because of gays, immigrants, minorities, women, etc, etc, than a PROVEN candidate who holds those positions which you claim the people are just clamouring for would have done a whole helluva allot better than he did. Who is that? The guy I voted for in the last election Gary Johnson. Here's a former GOP 2x term limited governor who has an all-star resume. What happen? They threw him on the bench and said "Sit and be quiet!" So what he do? Went 3rd party and got, what? 1% of the vote? Now say he stayed GOP and won the Nom, what would have happen? He'd have picked up maybe, maybe 10-15% of the middle all the while at conservative estimates he would have lost no less than 50% of the GOP base. They would have stayed home. Obama would have won a la Ronnie Reagan or LBJ style and the Party would have been crushed and a whole helluva allot more damage would be done to this country than what is currently transpiring.

The way to get them back is to not tell them they are stupid, takers, or any other derogatory names, no one but you is suggesting that. The way to get them back is to swing hard Right, and I'm talking HARD and then move to a center Right position. Center of the Right, not center right, just to clarify.

The way to surely lose them forever is to play the matching game with Dems and to take the completely asinine Ayn Rand approach to economics. People don't want wild wild west economics and a do as you please social free for all. The middle wants what the middle has always wanted, security, stability, reassurance, and yes hope.

Now, getting back to the point of this which was tactics not ideology, have you ever read "True Believer" by Eric Hoffer? Obama and Axelrod have. So much so that the video coverage for the 2008 election would be irrefutable evidence in an open and shut case if Hoffer's estate ever want to file a plagiarism suit against them.

If you haven't you should read it, then read Edward Bernays' "Propaganda". Once you get a grip on the nature of Mass Movements and how you can manipulate them then you might get creative and understand the underlying premise of my OP.

As it is, it seems you just want a GOP who are Democrats who don't give a rat's ass about the poor. The Dem's already do that perfectly. They're just good at making their supporters think otherwise.

For all you angst about what I believe or think.. you are making my point rather well.. in fact.. for the most part you are now agreeing with me that we need REAL conservatives with REAL ideas... not spew nonsense about convincing latinos that their parents came from corrupt countries...:doh (or have you forgotten your original post_)

And no one is calling them derogatory names? You really can't be serious about that. (47% are takers comes to mind)

And we do need substance... that's a working tactic...

As far as going hard right"... a lot depends on how you define it. Right now.. the republican party doesn't really want to listen to true conservatives.

Conservatives who want smaller more efficient government... which means the government needs to stay out of our social lives and out of deciding what medical procedures my wife can have or not have.
Conservative means having common sense with our debt. We need both tax increases (but in a smart responsible way) AND need decreases in government spending (again in a smart responsible way)
Conservative means staying out of the way of business whenever practical but keeping a fair place for competition and it does that with regulation.

Unfortunately.. most don't like that idea...
Right now there brand of conservativism is that government should stay out of our lives.. unless its telling us who we can marry, and what medical procedures my wife can have
Its these so called "conservatives" think its just terrible that we give a hungry kid a sandwich in school lunches... as long as we give a billion to an oil company to help them pump their own oil


No.. I don't want a democrat like candidate... and neither do I want a wackadoo that's focused more on whether a woman should be allowed to take birth control than they are on why we are still in Afghanistan after 10 years of war


And by the way.. I want a GOP leader that creates the most freedom and opportunity for everyone... not just a few chosen ones who give to their campaign.

 

[greyhat]

For all you angst about what I believe or think.. you are making my point rather well.. in fact.. for the most part you are now agreeing with me that we need REAL conservatives with REAL ideas... not spew nonsense about convincing latinos that their parents came from corrupt countries...:doh (or have you forgotten your original post_)

And no one is calling them derogatory names? You really can't be serious about that. (47% are takers comes to mind)

And we do need substance... that's a working tactic...

As far as going hard right"... a lot depends on how you define it. Right now.. the republican party doesn't really want to listen to true conservatives.

Conservatives who want smaller more efficient government... which means the government needs to stay out of our social lives and out of deciding what medical procedures my wife can have or not have.
Conservative means having common sense with our debt. We need both tax increases (but in a smart responsible way) AND need decreases in government spending (again in a smart responsible way)
Conservative means staying out of the way of business whenever practical but keeping a fair place for competition and it does that with regulation.

Unfortunately.. most don't like that idea...
Right now there brand of conservativism is that government should stay out of our lives.. unless its telling us who we can marry, and what medical procedures my wife can have
Its these so called "conservatives" think its just terrible that we give a hungry kid a sandwich in school lunches... as long as we give a billion to an oil company to help them pump their own oil


No.. I don't want a democrat like candidate... and neither do I want a wackadoo that's focused more on whether a woman should be allowed to take birth control than they are on why we are still in Afghanistan after 10 years of war


And by the way.. I want a GOP leader that creates the most freedom and opportunity for everyone... not just a few chosen ones who give to their campaign.

Amen!!

 

[jaeger19]

With all due respect,Romney did not in any way run a hateful campaign. Obama did. He very effectively used the grievance groups and identity politics. Not bashing him for it,it's politics. Romney treated Obama with kid gloves,and was also hampered because of Romneycare from attacking Obamacare. He also did not work hard enough. Obama made 3 stops to the Milwaukee area the last two weeks of the campaign. Biden was a constant presence. Romney/Ryan were not around much at all. You also need to acknowledge that incumbents usually win,and too many Republicans forgot that fact. Obama was in a very similar situation to what Bush was,barely hanging on,but still ultimately,like Bush was in 04,with the advantage.
Look,I think Republicans need to do some things different. We didn't lose because we were "mean".

With all due respect.. Romney did run a hateful campaign. But you sort of bring up a good point... many in the GOP have no idea that he did....

That's because a portion of the GOP is out of touch with the rest of America.

Lets start with Gay marriage... remember when Obama came out that he had deciding that he had changed his mind and gay marriage was okay.
What was Romney's immediate response... AGAINST gay marriage. What what do you think that you are telling people when you tell them that their relationship is not okay and is NOT on par with your marriage? You think you are being nice?

then there is the 47% comment. 47% that he "doesn't care about"... Again. what are you telling folks about what you think of them... you think its a nice thing

And then "self deportation" and on and on.

We absolutely lost because we alienated folks... whole populations in fact. We very much focused on people... Remember.. the slogan... "take our country back"... really? FROM WHO? Oh right.. anyone that disagrees or has disagreed with us.

 

[jaeger19]

By that argument,Obama is awfully hateful. Remember his "sticking to guns and religion statement"? That is as condescending as it gets. Romney was really dumb to say it,but not for the reason extreme fringe people like you think. He was talking like we are a society where "class"structure is always stagnant,and people are stuck permanently where they are. That is what people like you stand for. A conservative should not talk that way,but since he wasn't it makes sense.

Please... talk about revisionist history... what do you think he meant "I don't care about them" in his 47% comment?

Are you really going to tell me that he was really talking about social mobility?

 

[ChezC3]

For all you angst about what I believe or think.. you are making my point rather well.. in fact.. for the most part you are now agreeing with me that we need REAL conservatives with REAL ideas... not spew nonsense about convincing latinos that their parents came from corrupt countries...:doh (or have you forgotten your original post_)

Angst? No, No, I've got your number, The idea of having real conservatives with real ideas was never a point of contention, though from what you're writing your ideas and mine are looking very different. If you don't know how a political attack campaign is orchestrated and how the tactic I gave could help, which has nothing to do with the conservative bona fides of individuals, well that is just a matter you have to figure out on your own, I've repeated myself enough on the topic.

And no one is calling them derogatory names? You really can't be serious about that. (47% are takers comes to mind)

Meaning me, and the name calling you are referring to has nothing to do with my OP or any corresponding posts after.

And we do need substance... that's a working tactic...

Zzzzzzz.....

As far as going hard right"... a lot depends on how you define it. Right now.. the republican party doesn't really want to listen to true conservatives.

No, they don't and what you're preaching below isn't helping matters. You might have a different, more nuanced view but the way you are presenting it is testament to the exact thing I've been preaching on about. You've got to learn to give a better narrative. Of course, I don't think your view is nuanced, I am giving the benefit of doubt but you had plenty of opportunity to present it. As it is, it seems nothing more than the same old same old neocon prattle.

Conservatives who want smaller more efficient government... which means the government needs to stay out of our social lives and out of deciding what medical procedures my wife can have or not have.

No, what that means is that local communities get to decide for themselves what they find acceptable for them. Not some sweeping Federal mandate that allows the San Francisco crowd to dictate what is and isn't allowed in the Bible Belt.

Conservative means having common sense with our debt. We need both tax increases (but in a smart responsible way) AND need decreases in government spending (again in a smart responsible way)

Tax reform accompanied with incentives to increase worker wage thereby providing a larger tax base along with steep cuts in government spending is the common sense approach.

Conservative means staying out of the way of business whenever practical but keeping a fair place for competition and it does that with regulation.

Regulation should be protective not proactive by nature. Government propping up of industries, bailouts, subsidies, all these must end.

Unfortunately.. most don't like that idea...
Right now there brand of conservativism is that government should stay out of our lives.. unless its telling us who we can marry, and what medical procedures my wife can have

The Federal government has no business in any of this. Locally citizens should decide for themselves.

Its these so called "conservatives" think its just terrible that we give a hungry kid a sandwich in school lunches... as long as we give a billion to an oil company to help them pump their own oil

These are more the Ayn Randian Gordon Gecko types who aren't conservative but corporatist and need to be excommunicated.

No.. I don't want a democrat like candidate... and neither do I want a wackadoo that's focused more on whether a woman should be allowed to take birth control than they are on why we are still in Afghanistan after 10 years of war

That sounds precisely like what you want. A Corporate Democrat. You've given every indication that you're a neocon, the bane of conservatism. This explains your disagreeable nature.

And by the way.. I want a GOP leader that creates the most freedom and opportunity for everyone... not just a few chosen ones who give to their campaign.

You've given no indication of this, only pseudo freedom in the form of sweeping over arching allotments by the Federal Government. Nothings smells of elitist like Neocon...

 

[head of joaquin]

well if you went by vote,democrats in both the house and senate overwhelminly supported the patriot act,as did republicans.yeah the demcrats had more opposing it,but still an extreme minority.most only opposed the patriot act after they voted yay,and still voted for its reinstation.

infact in 2001 there was only one senator to oppose it,and he didnt oppose it based on spying,he opposed it because it lacked checks and balances and judicial oversight,believing that no checks would lead to abuse,which he was right.

The only opposition came from Democrats, and a number of Democrats opposed its renewal. Progressive groups outside of government opposed it vigorously. Conservative groups supported it vigorously.

The GOP demagogued 9-11 and whined that anybody who opposed the PA was "soft on terrorism", so I can't really blame the Democrats who supported it in the heat of the Bush demagogue-storm; the GOP wanted them to oppose it to us it as a campaign tactic. Americans are fools when it comes to falling for conservative patriotic drumbeating. So progressives and centrists have to play it smart, or worse harm will come as rightwingers take over on an outburst of demagoguery.

So there is no equivalency here: progressives opposed the PA, conservatives were for it. Period. It's weird to hear them whine now that the PA is doing what they wanted and involves metadata espionage.

 

[Paschendale]

I like how this thread is about "how can we trick Latinos into voting for Republicans?" instead of "how can we actually serve the interests of Latinos?"

 

[greyhat]

I like how this thread is about "how can we trick Latinos into voting for Republicans?" instead of "how can we actually serve the interests of Latinos?"

Why not the interests of the entire country?