Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:44 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:31 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
TheValuesVoter wrote:
That is a good question, SD, and, I don't believe that many blacks and Hispanic voters understand Republican voters either. I think false assumptions are held by both sides. Many people assume, falsely, that most Republicans are racist, are rich, are hateful or just perpetually angry and that they oppose President Obama largely because of the fact that he is black. Likewise, many Republican voters falsely assume that most voters who who do not vote Republican are liberal, see themselves as victims, want handouts and support Obama because he is black. The tragedy is that both sides talk past each other and about each other but not to each other. If they did, they'd discover how much many of them have in common and how both sides are being used and misled about "us" and "them."


Which is why Rush and Sharpton having microphones are both bad for the country. The structural advantage that Dems have is that media and education are such liberal monopolies that the only "unfiltered" voices that break-in to minority communities are talk-radio and FOX. Neither of these help. They are forces of "reverse mobilization."

Sadly it's not enough to have more attractive messengers or to somehow think we will do better with "moderating" our message (our message is not we want rape or Jim Crow - that is the stereotype that Rush and others contribute to). As long as we have to send our message through the MSM and educational plantation it will be either turned to a negative sterotype or a pastel echo of liberalism.

That is why Huck (and Reagan before him) understood that he had to develope his own channel of direct communication with a verticle voice of common sense conservatism. Reagan knew, esp after the Goldwater debacle, that he had to directly sell his "extremism" as only a return to common sense traditional values after the failure of radical left departures had harmed the Republic. He had to first create separation from the John Burkes groups (and William F. Buckley greatly helped conservatives in that regard) then he had to sell his brand with sunny optimism. Huck has been doing the same. I don't know if Huck is Reagan (and will return) or Buckley, or something else entirely. But his approach (like Reagan) is Chess and every other one is Checkers.

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes



Post by Southern Doc Liked by: cschande
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:33 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:19 pm
Posts: 1044
Likes: 8
Liked: 208
The whole Santa Claus line of thinking is Establishment talking points to make excuses for why they lost. They had their kind of candidate running their kind of campaign, and they lost. Rather than taking responsibility they want to blame the voters. The ONLY race where the conservative lost it for himself was Akin. Akin may have had some effect on Murdocks' race because Murdock made a comment about rape and abortion, and he got lumped in with Akin. But it's crazy for the establishment to blame that on somehow depressing turnout or turning voters off to the Republican brand. It was the moderate to liberal Establishment that turned voters off.

They want to continue to pound the message that we have to elect their kind of Republican to win. We need even more grass roots conservatives to challenge Establishment Republicans in the primaries. We just need those challengers to be competent and not come off as crazy. Remember, for every Todd Akin there is a Ted Cruz. For every Sharon Angle there is a Marco Rubio.



Post by WalterCan Liked by: TheValuesVoter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:14 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:23 pm
Posts: 1049
Location: California
Likes: 151
Liked: 36
Southern Doc wrote:
Grant, You are completely correct that demographics are changing. But they have ALWAYS changed. We've not been a "white nation" since 1915 as most Eastern and Southern Europeans were not considered at the time "white." We've not been a WASP nation since 1850 as Irish and Catholic Germans were either not Anglo/Saxon or not Protestant.

What we have ALWAYS been able to do is assimilate new groups into American society. Most in three generations. African-Americans, Native-Americans, and Jews, all had, and have unique and difficult histories which have slowed and truncated this process. There is no historical reason why shifting demographics should be our destiny. We are not a race, or collection of races. We are a People, founded on a proposition.

Republicans must be the champions of assimilation (as the were in the late 19th century when they realized that the only cure to the problem of Democratic Party - "Rum-Romanism-Rebellion" - was to "Americanize" the next generation.

Huckabee understood this with his call for GOOD students who were children of illegals to get the same access as citizen children to scholarships based on MERIT. The GOP cannot stop the Demographics in 2012 any more than the American Party could in the 1850's. But they can CONVERT the many into the one.

E Pluribus Unum.

To do this we must fight for the commanding heights of culture: media, education, religion in the public square. That is how "we" win - NOOOO!!!! that is how we preserve America for the next great generation of Americans.

I'm not so sure that the GOP becoming champions of assimilation would be a good thing, but I suppose it would depend on what one means by "assimilation", what exactly they would assimilate to (e.g., there are differences between people in Massachusetts and people in Alabama), and would also depend on how the GOP would go about championing assimilation. Many ethnic minorities are proud of their respective cultures and values, and attempts to "assimilate" may offend and backfire. Most immigrant families tend to acculturate rather than assimilate- acculturation meaning that the family retains some of their own culture and values while also taking in some of the culture and values of their new home society, so semi-assimilating, I guess you can say. I do agree that after a few generations, people tend to become more assimilated; however, I don't know if attempts to assimilate people would help in the short term and help us win in 2016. I think that reaching out to minority voters would be a far easier task than attempting to assimilate them, with the potential of reaping great rewards while carrying little risk. Plus, reaching out to voters certainly can't hurt! :)

Many immigrant families that come to the U.S. do so because they want to achieve the American dream; they want to believe that the harder they work, the more they'll achieve, so the GOP's upward mobility policies should resonate strongly. Many of these families are also socially conservative. The GOP platform should resonate with them more strongly than the Democrat platform. And so, I feel that GOP should simply reach out to them and articulate why the GOP represents what they believe more so than the Democrats. This strategy has worked well for the Democrats, helped President Bush in 2004 and Governor Huckabee, and can help the GOP in future elections, starting with our senate candidates in 2014. :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:28 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Posts: 1623
Location: Atlanta, GA
Likes: 177
Liked: 225
TheValuesVoter wrote:
The "Santa Claus" that Limbaugh was talking about is almost as much of a myth as the real Santa Claus. It's an excuse that some Republicans use to justify the party's failures in sustaining and growing the base. It is easier to explain away the numbers by telling themselves that the reason they're failing is because most voters who don't vote with them want handouts from the government. In the same way that some people who don't take advantage of opportunities available to them and who struggle financially blame "the system" for their unwillingness to work hard and take risks, some Republicans make themselves feel better by telling themselves that the voters are all liberal moochers. "It's not us. We don't have to work hard." ironically, it's a case of conservatives using the victim mentality.

Let me ask everyone a simple and honest question. For those who think they know why so many voters, especially blacks and Hispanics, vote Democratic ... Have you ever asked any of them why they voted the way they do?

I'm sorry, but you can't convince me that a Democratic voter cares anything about the constitution, property rights, or the Republic as it was founded. Ethnicity aside, that's the real issue to me. Now, if they don't care about these things, we have to sell them what they want.

Yet the GOP's problems go deeper. They should continue to battle public sector unions. We need to wage war on voter fraud. We need to take away the tools that benefit Democrats at the polls. Voter Photo ID needs to be rolled out wherever it can be. Any state that has a Republican legislature should do away with early voting.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:42 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
What concerns me is that everyone out in pundit land keeps drumming 'we need a minority outreach' & no one is specifying what exactly that means. I am positive that as far as the GOP leadership is concerned it means going along with the Democrats on amnesty, which if you'll forgive me for repeating myself, means that the GOP will alienate part of its base while impressing NO ONE on the other side of the divide.

What is an AUTHENTIC & CONCRETE way to reach out to minority groups? After all, reaching out to the NAACP was not particularly helpful, was it?

And because it feels so much more personal for me, I am most concerned about how do we reach those self-professed Christians who voted for Obama? I am inclined to believe that these are people who have made God over in their own image of who they want Him to be.

And if we work on our Christian outreach, will we not then be reaching out to minorities in the most effective possible way?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:21 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:12 am
Posts: 3819
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Likes: 194
Liked: 215
How about Republican leaders meeting with pastors of minority churches? One on one, group meetings, whatever. They need to build relationships. It's not a short term effort.

There are a lot of groups they could interact with - Black business groups, Black Chambers of Commerce, groups that support traditional marriage, etc... They need to find groups that share some common ground with them and look for opportunities to build bridges that can lead to further acceptance and eventually advocacy.

They also need to avoid self-inflicted wounds like when most of the GOP candidates skipped the primary debate at Morgan State four years ago.

_________________
Ken


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:56 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
I think the best "minority outreach" is to be true to what we profess as conservatives and American exceptionalists. On the issue of immigration we must decide how to rank and order our core values. Some of those values which relate to the issue are:

1.) we support individual initiative (immigrants have that)
2.) we support hard work (even for those sceptical concerning anchor babies, there are millions who show this trait )
3.) we support entrepreneurialism (check)
4.) we praise family commitment (go to ANY Mexican food store and look for the Money Wire sign in the window for men to send their pay back to their families)
5.) we honor military service (hispanics serve in the military at a greater rate than whites [ok - have to put in here the fact that whites are underrepresented not because of the cannard of "only the poor serve" but because whites in New England and the Left Coast don't serve in large numbers - Southern white, irrespective of education and wealth, serve at above average levels]
6.) we champion law and order (here is the rub)

It's the whole "legal" issue that sticks. In truth the legality of the immigrant in the past hasn't actually stopped Americans in the past from finding a way to actually praise the first five values as more important. For example:

Washington triggers the French and Indian war by intentionally going into land that England had ordered to leave unsettled to prevent any outrage that could trigger a war with France.

Daniel Boone pressed into Kentucky against the dictates of his government.

American settlers in Texas violated the terms of their invitation to immigrate by bringing their slaves and refusing to adopt the Catholic faith.

"Oregon" settlers were so expansive that their land hunger nearly led to war with England in 1845 (54 40 or Fight!).

Miners routinely violated the carefully negotiated treaties of the U.S. Government with native tribes in their search for personal fortunes. The government was often left to clean up the mess at the cost of blood and treasure (not to mention the costs to natives).

Perhaps the easiest example are the "Sooners" of Oklahoma who violated the rules (laws) about when they could enter new lands and stake their claims, as oppose to the "Boomers" who waited to follow the rules (and the sound of the signal cannon saying everyone could start) and lost out on the best land.

Which is why the Sooners are the mascots today and not the Boomers. We admire initiative. We're not in love with a big government regulating hard working folks who just want a better life.

I know that I would have been a Boomer waiting to follow the rules. But my great-great-great-grandfather went illegally through the Cumberland Gap with Boone (three times because they got pushed out and had to retreat only to return). I'm grateful that they did. And it certainly didn't hurt America. It built America. As oppose to letting Obama and the left turn these motivated folk into entitled, embittered, dependents on the state.

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY