McCain to Speak at the National Council of La Raza
And generally goes all Mexican for Cinco De Mayo.
I think McCain not taking the bait on immigration-pandering is among the best things strategically he has going for him. Not so much that it’ll be a big help to him (though it’ll certainly help him on the margins), but mostly that it avoids a very glaring unforced error that, for some reason, most Republicans choose to make. Future Republicans will have, in part, McCain to thank for not totally torpedoing the party brand with an entire generation of the country’s fasted growing demographic. Border security will always have a popular ring to it, but immigrant-bashing will not, and that’s a line that most Republicans seem utterly unable to not regularly cross. But back to the strategy, “tough on immigration” is very high on my list of political red herrings. I’ve yet to see any race where it made a discernible positive difference, and I’ve seen an awful lot of races where a candidate tried about as hard as can be tried to yoke his opponent with being “soft on immigration”, only to have it turn out to be a wet pop of an electoral issue, time and time again. There are some people, to be sure, who care very much about this issue. And they are totally and completely drowned out by the rest whenever it comes to a vote.
Anyway, daveg, I imagine, has a very different take, and for the record, Michelle Malkin agrees.
I’m sort of curious where the people for whom this is a make-or-break issue are going to go this general election.
I think that it is very easy to dismiss the illegal immigration question if you don’t live in an affected area. It is a very real concern in certain regions (the southwest, southern Texas, Florida and DC metropolitan area that I can think of off hand).
It’s not a very hot button item for me personally, but even fairly liberal local politicians in the D.C. area talk about it regularly, with great focus put on the number of non-English speaking students with illegal parents entering the public school system (my mom’s elementary school is 40% non-English speakers).
The counties in the area have been taking their own actions in the face of what they perceive as inaction by the federal government. For instance, Prince William County in northern Virginia (NoVA not being known for its conservative leanings) has enacted an anti-illegal immigration resolution that runs the gamut from allowing police to check residency status to denying illegals county services.
It’s been an on-going headache here and a real issue that people talk about often. A more stringent immigration policy would play pretty well in Virginia, which is a red-ish state leaning towards purple.
Overall I don’t think it’s not a true concern for most Americans, but I would not dismiss it out of hand as playing no role at all. There are some really angry people around here and they are not all unreasonable human beings or xenophobic.
Comment by Liz — 5/5/2008 @ 11:13 pm
Brian Bilbray won his district by emphasizing strong immigration enforcement against a surging democratic candidate. Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) is making it one of his key issues.
You just don’t know you history on this one.
The problem occurs when the immigration control advocates are also pro-war. In general, the war is such a loser that it overwhelms the immigration issue.
And even the strongest proponents of more immigration only are willing to say so under the verbiage of “comprehensive immigration reform” which is confusing by design.
When one side is trying to confuse the issue, that is a sure sign there position is not popular.
All that said, tone certainly matters. You can’t claim immigrants are bad people. You can’t say all immigration is bad, just the level and quality (or lack thereof) we have now is not helping the nation.
Comment by daveg — 5/6/2008 @ 2:25 am
I should also add that in close republican primaries, such as Chris Cannon’s, the Republican establishment poured in resources at the last minute include flooding the districts with phone call from president bush and even the first lady.
But for these efforts the advocate for better controls on illegal immigration would certainly have won the race, even thought that person had not held an office before and was running against a 12+ year incumbent.
Comment by daveg — 5/6/2008 @ 4:09 am
Oh, an Hispanics will not vote Republican majority, nor will they vote for less government. In NO state or district is this the case.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is lying or misinformed.
Comment by daveg — 5/6/2008 @ 11:28 am
The point of winning elections is to maximise votes, not to win the majority of votes in each group. So, whilst I don’t have an opinion either way on which way Hispanics will vote in the future, some will vote Republican andsome won’t; the calculation is how to increase one number and not the other and whether doing so will cost you votes elsewhere. Of course, that is no different from any other sort of politics.
Comment by Adam — 5/6/2008 @ 12:27 pm