The Democrats are the Party of Sloth. A majority of the Democratic party's platform's planks revolve around mitigating or eliminating the natural consequences which arise from bad life choices and lack of ambition.
This may resonate with some Hispanics, but I think a majority of them respect the work ethic embodied by Libertarians and some Republicans.
Just guessing. I believe that the first party on either side which establishes itself as a true meritocracy (vs. kleptocracy on the Left and nepotocracy on the Right) will capture a large percentage of the ambitious poor of all races.
While some people speak a bit overmuch of what the hispanic vote will mean now and in the future, it is an absolute truth that it will very shortly be much more important than any other minority vote.
Of course, the hispanic vote will not be a minority voting bloc - they wont be like the Jews or the blacks who routinely give 80%+ of their votes to one party. First off, thats incredibly stupid; secondly, its not in the nature of things. Church-going hispanics will tend to vote just like all other church-going Catholic voters - solid majority GOP while the non-church-going hispanics will tend to vote the way similar to the other non-church-goers.
Slice it any way you like, the backbone of the United States is largely carried around by people who believe in God in a real way - and thus the hispanic vote will, on balance, be a vote for the continued strength of the United States.
I see no problem with Arnie getting a goodly portion of the hispanic vote - I figure him for at least 30%, and perhaps as much as 45%; after all, he's a Catholic, too....
Arnie is great! I think he has such a great life experience and knows everything from to roots to the top and I think that he'll manage. I'm for him.
At last it will be fun to see him rules;)
One of the things that I've been hearing is that there is an underreported split in the Hispanic community of Southern California. CA has a big population of illegal immigrants from Mexico, but it also has a big population of _legal_ immigrants from Mexico, and many of them aren't happy that they went to the trouble of immigrating legally, while the illegals got to cut in line. This is especially important because, frankly, the opinions of illegals doesn't matter. They can't vote, well, not legally...um...driver's licenses...moter voter...uh oh....
In any case, Arnold has made a strong pitch to the legal immigrants on the basis of a shared experience that transcends country-of-origin. This connection is stronger because he recognizes, more than a native-born American would, the insult that illegal immigration is to the legal immigrant. As much as Arnold's pro-Prop. 187 stance may hurt him in some MEChA-oriented segments of the Hispanic population, it will probably come out as a wash (at least), because it will _help_ him with the group of Hispanics that voted for Prop. 187 themselves--and there weren't just a few.
Actually, as a practicing Lutheran, I'm totally content that the majority of Latinos are believers. I am more than a little alarmed at Catholics' misguided reverence of the virgin Mary and ongoing credulity in the Pope (in light of the inherent, documented corruption of all unaccountable centralized authority), but on balance, these are trivial objections.
My biggest anxiety is that Mexico will one day get its act together and stop centrifuging its most ambitious people into our country. If that day ever comes, it will hurt us.
And I'm very content with Lutherans with the only concern being well, ya know, whats the point? I suggest reading some of Neuhaus's stuf (former Lutheran minister, now a Catholic priest, author of, among others, The Catholic Moment).
As for Mexico, it does, ever so slowly, get its act together - and with its rapidly declining birth rate, the flow north will probably stop within 20 years....
I'm aware of the existence of Neuhaus, and the trajectory of his religious affiliations, but not with his writings or the thinking underpinning his conclusions.
I think the point as I see it is that the Pope is, objectively speaking, just as corrupt and sinful as the rest of us (not only abstractly in the context of Original Sin, but tangibly in the context of the pedophilia cover-ups), and is therefore totally undeserving of the kind of fealty which Catholics still express towards him. Neuhaus may have decided he'd be more effective reforming the Catholic church from within than without, I don't know.
Outside of that, I'm honestly not familiar enough with the Vatican II reforms to see how much closer we've come to each other. If you have any links, or relevant Neuhaus titles, I'm interested to know them.
Skeptical? Why skeptical?
I find it hard to believe that Arnold will get much of a Hispanic vote. But, I could be wrong!
The Democrats are the Party of Sloth. A majority of the Democratic party's platform's planks revolve around mitigating or eliminating the natural consequences which arise from bad life choices and lack of ambition.
This may resonate with some Hispanics, but I think a majority of them respect the work ethic embodied by Libertarians and some Republicans.
Just guessing. I believe that the first party on either side which establishes itself as a true meritocracy (vs. kleptocracy on the Left and nepotocracy on the Right) will capture a large percentage of the ambitious poor of all races.
Jonathan,
While some people speak a bit overmuch of what the hispanic vote will mean now and in the future, it is an absolute truth that it will very shortly be much more important than any other minority vote.
Of course, the hispanic vote will not be a minority voting bloc - they wont be like the Jews or the blacks who routinely give 80%+ of their votes to one party. First off, thats incredibly stupid; secondly, its not in the nature of things. Church-going hispanics will tend to vote just like all other church-going Catholic voters - solid majority GOP while the non-church-going hispanics will tend to vote the way similar to the other non-church-goers.
Slice it any way you like, the backbone of the United States is largely carried around by people who believe in God in a real way - and thus the hispanic vote will, on balance, be a vote for the continued strength of the United States.
I see no problem with Arnie getting a goodly portion of the hispanic vote - I figure him for at least 30%, and perhaps as much as 45%; after all, he's a Catholic, too....
Arnie is great! I think he has such a great life experience and knows everything from to roots to the top and I think that he'll manage. I'm for him.
At last it will be fun to see him rules;)
One of the things that I've been hearing is that there is an underreported split in the Hispanic community of Southern California. CA has a big population of illegal immigrants from Mexico, but it also has a big population of _legal_ immigrants from Mexico, and many of them aren't happy that they went to the trouble of immigrating legally, while the illegals got to cut in line. This is especially important because, frankly, the opinions of illegals doesn't matter. They can't vote, well, not legally...um...driver's licenses...moter voter...uh oh....
In any case, Arnold has made a strong pitch to the legal immigrants on the basis of a shared experience that transcends country-of-origin. This connection is stronger because he recognizes, more than a native-born American would, the insult that illegal immigration is to the legal immigrant. As much as Arnold's pro-Prop. 187 stance may hurt him in some MEChA-oriented segments of the Hispanic population, it will probably come out as a wash (at least), because it will _help_ him with the group of Hispanics that voted for Prop. 187 themselves--and there weren't just a few.
The last poll I saw showed Arnold pulling about 15% of the hispanic vote in California.
Mark:
Actually, as a practicing Lutheran, I'm totally content that the majority of Latinos are believers. I am more than a little alarmed at Catholics' misguided reverence of the virgin Mary and ongoing credulity in the Pope (in light of the inherent, documented corruption of all unaccountable centralized authority), but on balance, these are trivial objections.
My biggest anxiety is that Mexico will one day get its act together and stop centrifuging its most ambitious people into our country. If that day ever comes, it will hurt us.
Jonathan,
And I'm very content with Lutherans with the only concern being well, ya know, whats the point? I suggest reading some of Neuhaus's stuf (former Lutheran minister, now a Catholic priest, author of, among others, The Catholic Moment).
As for Mexico, it does, ever so slowly, get its act together - and with its rapidly declining birth rate, the flow north will probably stop within 20 years....
Hey Mark:
I'm aware of the existence of Neuhaus, and the trajectory of his religious affiliations, but not with his writings or the thinking underpinning his conclusions.
I think the point as I see it is that the Pope is, objectively speaking, just as corrupt and sinful as the rest of us (not only abstractly in the context of Original Sin, but tangibly in the context of the pedophilia cover-ups), and is therefore totally undeserving of the kind of fealty which Catholics still express towards him. Neuhaus may have decided he'd be more effective reforming the Catholic church from within than without, I don't know.
Outside of that, I'm honestly not familiar enough with the Vatican II reforms to see how much closer we've come to each other. If you have any links, or relevant Neuhaus titles, I'm interested to know them.