Thursday, August 12, 2010


While working the campaign trail, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told a largely-Hispanic audience that he doesn't know "how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican."

This is the same Harry Reid who has condemned Arizona's immigration law because it could conceivably lead to "ethnic profiling" which public officials would make assumptions about people simply based on their ethnicity. But apparently what's bad policy for cops is perfectly acceptable policy for Democratic senators.

It has to be fairly insulting to Hispanics to hear that Harry believes their political decisions are determined by genes rather than intellect. Or that there's something in Hispanics' "heritage" which would make them averse to obeying the law or voting in favor of fiscal responsibility.

So to put an end to the Nevada senator's puzzlement, there are actually plenty of reasons that Hispanics might be Republicans. And topping the list is the dismissing and demeaning attitude of Democrats like Harry Reid.



Angry Hoosier Dad said...

Wasn't that attitude called "the soft bigotry of low expectations"? Expecting an entire ethnic group to be Democrat is pretty low.

alan markus said...

This is one of those posts that are good for "connecting the dots".

I remember reading this awhile back (it's from 2006):
The liberal baby bust
The article is a little tedious to read, but it points out that conservatives tend to have larger families, progressives smaller families.

"It's a pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future — one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default. Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families."

Here's an article posted yesterday:
Report: 8 percent of U.S. newborns have undocumented parents

So, that means 340,000+ defacto Democrats born each year.

Have the Democrats no shame? Is breeding future Democrats something tasked to illegal immigrants because it is something natural born Democrats don't want to do?

Pete(Detroit) said...

Typical of the leftist 'we rule, because you are not fit / capable of making intelligent decisions on your own. The sad fact that the leftists are ALSO incapable of making intelligent decisions goes un-noticed...

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

alan- we never thought of conceiving babies as "jobs Americans won't do," but you make a convincing argument. Plus, a recent study says that raising taxes (which is almost certainly in our immediate future) causes families to have even fewer children because they can't afford them.

Of course, that logic applies only to families that pay taxes...not families which are supported by them.

Suzy said...


Emmentaler Limburger said...

Someone needs to give Reid one of 0bama's teleprompters. He has, time and again, let slip nuances of his true view of society like this.

This is part and parcel of their elitist bent. They believe they are above all of us rabble. They believe that it is only racism or profiling if someone beneath them utters similar.

They disgust me.

Thankfully, the wheels are definitely coming off of 0bama's bus. Defections are rampant (who else read of Robert Gibbs's blasphemy against his party? (The Hill reported yesterday that Gibbs believes the "professional left" should be "drug tested" since they will only be satisfied "when we have Canadian health care and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon." Who could have imagined that such a well-programmed, patronizing mouth-piece for the big 0 could possibly utter something like that?) Zogby suggests that appearance of 0bama on democrats' campaigns is "toxic" to them...

The one remaining treasonous act within their (Pel0si, Reid, 0bama) grasp is the so-called "lame duck" session in which they can pass a bushel basket of socialism with no fear of voter retribution - they will have already been voted out of office. If only we can eliminate this administration in the same election...

Anonymous said...

Part of me wonders if Gibb's comments weren't deliberately designed to help Obama do a "rhetorical" pivot to the right. This way, Obama doesn't have to act like a centrist, he simply talks like one when it's convenient. When Gibbs speaks, he's addressing the MSM (who by and large think like liberals and fancy themselves centrists). They carry Obama's water. They dutifully helped the administration demagogue conservatives as racist, homophobic, gun-loving nuts. Is the same thing going to happen with some ultra leftists? When the Whitehouse defines the extremes (and gets away with it) too many people who aren't paying attention will believe the rhetoric and lies and think they're voting for the person in the middle. Sigh. I just don't know that enough people are paying attention.

Front Woodsman said...

Problem with free elections in a free country is that we're at the mercy of the ubiquitous bell curve. 50% of any population you sample are below average intelligence, so if you can get all of them to turn out and vote by offering a nice new shiny pack of lies about how bright their Socialist future will be, and then at the same time appeal to another 10% or so of liberal elitists who are intelligent but whose brains are simply wired backwards, then you have a lifetime mandate. Have to remind myself every day, dealing with the public; "Half are below average, 20% below that, 10% just nuts, hope to meet the 10% that have brains that work pretty soon..." Meanwhile keep in mind who you are likely to meet in traffic, and be prepared for the left turn on red with the right turn blinker flashing. Bottom left corner of the curve, every time.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

Anonymous- Excellent point. If Obama wants to run as a "centrist" but is unwilling to give up his far-left agenda, the only other alternative is to alter the definition of "far left" and push it into such bizarre extremes (like those described by Gibbs) that Obama appears moderate by comparison.

And unfortunately, not enough people are paying attention.

pryorguy said...

right on there, Woodsman...I have never wanted EVERYONE to vote...too many just follow like the uninformed sheep that they are...and that works to a progressive's advantage when running for's how we ended up with Obama!

Now, hopefully, we can rid ourselves of a bunch of lib congressmen this November, but, if we do and the new guys coming in take over and make some headway in the right direction, it could conceivably help Obama in 2012 at re-election time. But know what? I think the 'sane' voters of this country WILL NOT forget these first two years of the 'bama reign, even two years from now. KICK THE BUMS OUT!!!! REID AND PELOSI GOOD RIDDANCE!!

Anonymous said...

I'll vote for anyone except a politician.

Anonymous said...

[Saw this post on another blog]
A few people of Hispanic heritage who Harry Reid could ask about being Republicans:

Rudy Garcia - Florida State Senator
Brian Sandoval - running for governor in RIED'S HOME STATE
Carolos Alvarez - Mayor, Dade County
Henry Bonilla - former Congressman
Katherine Ortega - former US Treasurer
Linda Chavez - pundit/author/commentator
Marco Rubio - candidate for US Senate
Anna Escobedo Cabral - former US Treasurer
Richard Carmona - former US Surgeon General
Carlos Gutierrez - former Secretary of Commerce
Alberta Gonzales - former Attorney General
Gloria & Emilio Estefan - entertainers & proud Republicans

and of course

Alci Maldonado - National Chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly