GOP Follows Neocon Advice, Shoots Self In Foot (Again)

The 2004 presidential election may
turn out to be decided by

racial identities
. For the last decade or so, the
Republican Party has abandoned all pretense of
controlling mass immigration on the superstitious ground
that

immigration control
will alienate the booming
Hispanic vote. Now, as two major news stories last week
suggested, that superstition is exploded as the

myth
it has

always been.

The Wall Street Journal
reports that the growing Hispanic vote, centered mainly
in the far Western states, is providing new hope for the
campaign of Democratic nominee John Kerry. While the
Democrats have never had much of a problem

winning Hispanics
(Al Gore won 65 percent in 2000;

George W. Bush only 32 percent)
, the mass
immigration the Republicans have

tolerated and even supported
has eaten into one of
their
main geographical bastions
in the West. 

"Many new arrivals" in the
Western states, the Wall Street Journal

reported
last week,

"are
lower-income workers drawn to the

booming resorts
,
social liberals

migrating from California
and, most importantly,
Hispanics, who tend to vote Democratic by a two-to-one
ratio.  In Nevada, Latinos are expected to cast 10
percent of all votes this year, up from 3.9 percent

eight years ago
…. In New Mexico, Hispanics this year
will cast one of every three ballots." [
New
Frontier: Population Shifts In West Shape Kerry`s
Strategy;
Jacob M. Schlesinger and Miriam Jordan.
Wall Street Journal.
Jul 21, 2004. [subscriber
link
]

Well, OK, but then President Bush
has proposed what is in substance an amnesty program for
illegal aliens. Won`t the Hispanic immigrants be so
grateful to him that they`ll switch their

traditional political allegiances
and vote
Republican?

No. The Washington Post last
week released the results of a new

poll
that shows that

"At a
time when Bush and Kerry are running about even among
all registered voters, Kerry enjoys a 2 to 1 advantage
over Bush among Latino registered voters. Hispanics give
Bush lower approval ratings than the overall population
does, and the poll shows that the bulk of the Latino
community continues to identify with the Democratic
Party."[
Kerry
Has Strong Advantage Among Latino Voters
By
Richard Morin and Dan Balz Washington Post, July
22, 2004]

Moreover, not only do Hispanic
voters not even like

Mr. Amnesty
himself,

George W. Bush
, they also don`t seem to care much
about immigration.

It is a myth that the Hispanic vote
is largely driven by concern over immigration and that
opposing immigration will lose Hispanics.

In another new poll, only 27
percent of registered Latino voters said immigration
would be an important factor in their vote for
president, behind moral values (36 percent), taxes (33
percent) and the federal budget deficit (30 percent),
according to the poll`s sponsors, the Pew Hispanic
Center and the Kaiser Family Foundation.[PDF]
The only people for more immigration are the

Open Borders
crowd.

The Post`s poll found much
the same trends, with the

economy
,

education
, terrorism, and the

war in Iraq
as the top issues among Hispanics.

Immigration, let alone amnesty,
doesn`t even register with most Hispanic voters.

Neither the demographics of the
Western states nor the new polls prove that Mr. Bush and
the Republicans will—again—lose the Hispanic vote, but
they do suggest, as his Democratic opponents have
already figured out, that the president is

vulnerable
in what should be his home base—the
Southwest.

As the Journal article
noted, "In the 10 presidential elections from 1952
through 1988, only two Western states, Hawaii and
Washington, voted Democratic more than twice."

Democrats have been gaining seats
and votes in local and state elections in this region
because of immigration, and that`s why
Mr. Kerry
and Democratic National Committee Chairman

Terry McAuliffe
are pushing the campaign into them.

"We as a party need to be
putting stakes down in those states,"
Mr. McAuliffe
told the Journal. "In particular, he adds, `we
needed to bring in Hispanics earlier than ever, so
they`d feel empowered and energized.`"

Mr. Bush may not lose these states,
but even he understands that if he does, he`ll lose the
election.

What mass immigration has done is
make the Republicans` rivals competitive inside their
own fortress.  It`s the

political equivalent
of the D-Day landing.

So who was it that advised the
Republicans to drop their opposition to mass
immigration?

As with so many other blunders the
party has made in the recent past, the fine fingers of
the

neoconservatives
are smudged all over it.


Linda Chavez
,

Robert Bartley
and

Paul Gigot
of the Wall Street Journal,

Newt Gingrich
, and

Jack Kemp
and

Bill Bennett
and their

moronic decision
to oppose Proposition 187 in
California 10 years ago, as well as the

usual gang
of neocon eggheads, all badgered the
party into dropping immigration control as an issue and
courting the Hispanic vote through pandering.

If the Bush administration survives
this election at all, it needs to consider that the
neoconservatives whose advice it has followed on
immigration politics have been no less disastrous than
those whose counsel it took on foreign policy.

COPYRIGHT

CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Sam Francis [email
him] is a nationally syndicated columnist. A selection
of his columns,

America Extinguished: Mass Immigration And The
Disintegration Of American Culture
, is now available
from

Americans For Immigration Control.

Click here
for Sam Francis` website. Click

here
to order his monograph
,
Ethnopolitics: Immigration, Race, and the American
Political Future.


His review essay on
Who Are We

appears in the

current issue
of

Chronicles Magazine.