GOP Elects African-American as RNC Chairman

[Daedalus12]

Latinos in the form of aggressive, border control only immigration initiatives -- it will ring hollow.

I don't see why one party should be held hostage by a ethnic group just because it's very much against illegal immigration.

As for Steele. He has been a rank and file conservative for many years and through his media appearances in the recent years he has raised his profile significantly. It's no surprise to me that he was selected today. No the timing is not a coincidence but I believe most of the 91 voters who voted for him didn't do it just because they think he can be used as token piece.

 

[Red Ranger]

Latinos in the form of aggressive, border control only immigration initiatives -- it will ring hollow.

I don't see why one party should be held hostage by a ethnic group just because it's very much against illegal immigration.

As for Steele. He has been a rank and file conservative for many years and through his media appearances in the recent years he has raised his profile significantly. It's no surprise to me that he was selected today. No the timing is not a coincidence but I believe most of the 91 voters who voted for him didn't do it just because they think he can be used as token piece.

"Held hostage"? Strong words. No, it's the heavy-handed approach some in Congress have used to enforce immigration laws that is offensive. There is a historical bias against immigrants from Latin America -- and other parts of the world -- codified by law in the form of quotas on some groups, but unrestricted immigration from Europe and other, "desirable" countries.

Now, this is a "bi-partisan" flaw, as there are several Democrats who are also just as border-control-crazy as some Republicans. I heard a phrase from the new junior Democratic Senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand, "right-sizing" immigration. It implies a thoughtful, multi-pronged approach to the issue that neither demonizes nor soft-pedals the issue.

What's been too often a major part of the GOP's approach is demonizing Latino immigrants. You never hear a hue and cry about modern Irish immigrants who work just as hard as Latino immigrants, for example. I maintain there is a racist component to the immigration issue. Very little talk, for example, of punishing the Americans who knowingly employ illegals. That's an example of the hypocrisy I see from the GOP.

Hope I've been clear!

Red Ranger

 

[Captain Intrepid]

People,

Today, the GOP elected Michael Steele as the first African-American chairman of the Republican National Committee:

Why is this even news? They've got a new chairman and he's black, so what?

 

[Daedalus12]

"Held hostage"? Strong words. No, it's the heavy-handed approach some in Congress have used to enforce immigration laws that is offensive. There is a historical bias against immigrants from Latin America -- and other parts of the world -- codified by law in the form of quotas on some groups, but unrestricted immigration from Europe and other, "desirable" countries.

Quota based on nationality no longer existed after 1965. Immigration since then has been restricted to both hemispheres no matter the nationality. The demand for immigration was still as high as ever hence we saw the blow up in illegal immigration in the post 65 era. I can't fault the people here who want to taking a hard line against that. I don't think it's an offensive for a country to enforce its border laws.

What's been too often a major part of the GOP's approach is demonizing Latino immigrants. You never hear a hue and cry about modern Irish immigrants who work just as hard as Latino immigrants, for example. I maintain there is a racist component to the immigration issue. Very little talk, for example, of punishing the Americans who knowingly employ illegals. That's an example of the hypocrisy I see from the GOP.

There is no hypocrisy here. GOP is a fairly big tent so what you are seeing is simply the manifestation of two type of personalities in the republican party. While the racist component certain exists but you can hardly blame the current GOP platform for ignorant people. The problem of the current indigenous illegal population is complex and I think the GOP is very much split on that issue which is epitomized by the "McCain-Kyl disaccord". All the demonizing is rather despicable but really it can't be helped because that would require some massive brain washing and behavior conditioning. Also I would wager that demonizing and xenophobia isn't something that is unique to the GOP. The democrats have their own favorite targets i.e. I have certainly heard more Democrats bringing their knives out against the H1-B visa program

It implies a thoughtful, multi-pronged approach to the issue that neither demonizes nor soft-pedals the issue.

I would argue that since 1965 our government has chosen to neglect the issue for the most part. If not that is not soft-pedalling then I don't know what is. I don't think you can blame the GOP for pursuing an aggressive anti-immigration crusade.

 

[Red Ranger]

"Held hostage"? Strong words. No, it's the heavy-handed approach some in Congress have used to enforce immigration laws that is offensive. There is a historical bias against immigrants from Latin America -- and other parts of the world -- codified by law in the form of quotas on some groups, but unrestricted immigration from Europe and other, "desirable" countries.

Quota based on nationality no longer existed after 1965. Immigration since then has been restricted to both hemispheres no matter the nationality. The demand for immigration was still as high as ever hence we saw the blow up in illegal immigration in the post 65 era. I can't fault the people here who want to taking a hard line against that. I don't think it's an offensive for a country to enforce its border laws.

What's been too often a major part of the GOP's approach is demonizing Latino immigrants. You never hear a hue and cry about modern Irish immigrants who work just as hard as Latino immigrants, for example. I maintain there is a racist component to the immigration issue. Very little talk, for example, of punishing the Americans who knowingly employ illegals. That's an example of the hypocrisy I see from the GOP.

There is no hypocrisy here. GOP is a fairly big tent so what you are seeing is simply the manifestation of two type of personalities in the republican party. While the racist component certain exists but you can hardly blame the current GOP platform for ignorant people. The problem of the current indigenous illegal population is complex and I think the GOP is very much split on that issue which is epitomized by the "McCain-Kyl disaccord". All the demonizing is rather despicable but really it can't be helped because that would require some massive brain washing and behavior conditioning. Also I would wager that demonizing and xenophobia isn't something that is unique to the GOP. The democrats have their own favorite targets i.e. I have certainly heard more Democrats bringing their knives out against the H1-B visa program

It implies a thoughtful, multi-pronged approach to the issue that neither demonizes nor soft-pedals the issue.

I would argue that since 1965 our government has chosen to neglect the issue for the most part. If not that is not soft-pedalling then I don't know what is. I don't think you can blame the GOP for pursuing an aggressive anti-immigration crusade.

I find it hard to believe that you can't see the hypocrisy, or the racism, in railing against one group (illegal Latino immigrants) but not another (illegal modern-day Irish immigrants). Or the outright lies that illegals don't pay taxes or contribute to the economy and society in a meaningful way. And I can find fault when this "aggressive anti-immigration crusade" is pursued along racist, xenophobic lines.

As I understand it, there were reforms put in place in the 1980s vis-a-vis immigration law. The other hypocrisy in the approach to immigration is merely emphasizing the border aspect without prosecuting businesses who hire illegals, or securing our northern as well as southern border, not to mention our ports that are still porous nearly eight years after 9/11. Terrorists, after all, snuck into the U.S. from Canada, not Mexico.

It's this jigsaw puzzle approach that some Republicans and some Democrats have toward the issue I find frustrating. And full disclosure: I am Latino, born in the U.S., but even if I were born where my parents were, Puerto Rico, I'd still be a citizen -- Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917, when America needed more troops to fight in World War I. Since then, Puerto Ricans have fought with distinction in every war since, including Iraq. So I feel strongly when a group that's contributed to America is demonized.

Red Ranger

 

[Red Ranger]

People,

Today, the GOP elected Michael Steele as the first African-American chairman of the Republican National Committee:

Why is this even news? They've got a new chairman and he's black, so what?

You really don't see why? Have you not read all the previous posts? Do you not know how race has and continues to play a role in society? I feel bad for you, then. -- RR

 

[suarezguy]

it's the heavy-handed approach some in Congress have used to enforce immigration laws that is offensive. There is a historical bias against immigrants from Latin America -- and other parts of the world -- codified by law in the form of quotas on some groups, but unrestricted immigration from Europe and other, "desirable" countries.

Now, this is a "bi-partisan" flaw, as there are several Democrats who are also just as border-control-crazy as some Republicans. I heard a phrase from the new junior Democratic Senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand, "right-sizing" immigration. It implies a thoughtful, multi-pronged approach to the issue that neither demonizes nor soft-pedals the issue.

What's been too often a major part of the GOP's approach is demonizing Latino immigrants. You never hear a hue and cry about modern Irish immigrants who work just as hard as Latino immigrants, for example. I maintain there is a racist component to the immigration issue. Very little talk, for example, of punishing the Americans who knowingly employ illegals. That's an example of the hypocrisy I see from the GOP.

I think most Republicans do call for punishing employers. While you complain about heavy-handedness, I don't like the way that many politicians insist that their plan is The Compromise, that it's not amnesty because illegal immigrants would have to hold a job, pay fines, get in the back of the line and learn English, that's earning citizenship; those don't seem like stringent requirements.
If there is legalization without securing the border, then that would seem to encourage more illegal immigration and we'd go through this again.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

People,

Today, the GOP elected Michael Steele as the first African-American chairman of the Republican National Committee:

Why is this even news? They've got a new chairman and he's black, so what?

You really don't see why? Have you not read all the previous posts? Do you not know how race has and continues to play a role in society? I feel bad for you, then. -- RR

I think Steele was a great choice. And while race continues to play a role in society, it's important to realize there's racism on all sides.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

it's the heavy-handed approach some in Congress have used to enforce immigration laws that is offensive. There is a historical bias against immigrants from Latin America -- and other parts of the world -- codified by law in the form of quotas on some groups, but unrestricted immigration from Europe and other, "desirable" countries.

Now, this is a "bi-partisan" flaw, as there are several Democrats who are also just as border-control-crazy as some Republicans. I heard a phrase from the new junior Democratic Senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand, "right-sizing" immigration. It implies a thoughtful, multi-pronged approach to the issue that neither demonizes nor soft-pedals the issue.

What's been too often a major part of the GOP's approach is demonizing Latino immigrants. You never hear a hue and cry about modern Irish immigrants who work just as hard as Latino immigrants, for example. I maintain there is a racist component to the immigration issue. Very little talk, for example, of punishing the Americans who knowingly employ illegals. That's an example of the hypocrisy I see from the GOP.

I think most Republicans do call for punishing employers. While you complain about heavy-handedness, I don't like the way that many politicians insist that their plan is The Compromise, that it's not amnesty because illegal immigrants would have to hold a job, pay fines, get in the back of the line and learn English, that's earning citizenship; those don't seem like stringent requirements.
If there is legalization without securing the border, then that would seem to encourage more illegal immigration and we'd go through this again.

Nice post.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

People,

Today, the GOP elected Michael Steele as the first African-American chairman of the Republican National Committee:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/republicans

Is this the GOP understanding they need to broaden their party to become viable and relevant, and picked Steele based on his ability to organize and inspire new minority members, or just, "Hey, now we have a black guy running things!" a cynical, "me, too" ploy?

Nah, I didn't think it was a "me-too" thing. Steele has always come across to me as a very thoughtful individual that has a lot of interesting things to say--he strikes me as someone who could really help the Republican Party to get a coherent message again. He's probably one of the best the Republican Party has got, and in my opinion, he deserves the post.

 

[Gertch]

Nah, I didn't think it was a "me-too" thing. Steele has always come across to me as a very thoughtful individual that has a lot of interesting things to say--he strikes me as someone who could really help the Republican Party to get a coherent message again. He's probably one of the best the Republican Party has got, and in my opinion, he deserves the post.

I've watched him for the past year or so on FOX and he's an intelligent and articulate man. I think he'll do a great job for them. Time will tell.

 

[Meat Tenderizer]

And people said Obama was inexperienced.

And they were correct.

Love fighting old fights, eh, Gertch? Ever heard of the Maginot Line? And we see how well that argument worked -- the experience one, not the actual Maginot line! See: Sarah Palin. -- RR

Time will tell how Obama performs. We've got four years with him. It could in 2012 Sarah Palin could be a front-runner in the Presidential race.

 

[trekkerguy]

It could in 2012 Sarah Palin could be a front-runner in the Presidential race.

If the GOP ever wants to be seriously considered again they need to shoot her in the leg
before she gets anywhere close to trying to run.

I think they're totally playing the race card in an effort to bring in more minority voters.

The Dems got a black man elected president, so the GOP has little hope of topping that. But yeah, just days after we have our first African American president to see the that GOP elected one to lead their own party just smacks of tokenism.

Kinda like another act of Tokenism they pulled(See above) on the way to THE election...
the one that meant something.

 

[Kryton]

I've watched him for the past year or so on FOX and he's an intelligent and articulate man.

But is he CLEAN? I guess if Biden can get away with that shit, you can too.

 

[Gertch]

I've watched him for the past year or so on FOX and he's an intelligent and articulate man.

But is he CLEAN? I guess if Biden can get away with that shit, you can too.

Are you saying people are upset because he was picked on the content of his character and not the color of his skin like BHO was?

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I've watched him for the past year or so on FOX and he's an intelligent and articulate man.

But is he CLEAN? I guess if Biden can get away with that shit, you can too.

I don't think Gertch was trying to make a racial remark there--though I do know what Biden comment you're referring to. I think Gertch was trying to say that it seems Steele has a natural talent for extemporaneous speech.

 

[trekkerguy]

I've watched him for the past year or so on FOX and he's an intelligent and articulate man.

But is he CLEAN? I guess if Biden can get away with that shit, you can too.

Are you saying people are upset because he was picked on the content of his character and not the color of his skin like BHO was?

Well he's half white American half black Kenyan and I voted for him based
on his character and ideals. Not his color. I couldn't careless what someone's
skin color is. Funny the things the Republican party throws out there to try
and compensate for their collective losses.

 

[Gertch]

I've watched him for the past year or so on FOX and he's an intelligent and articulate man.

But is he CLEAN? I guess if Biden can get away with that shit, you can too.

I don't think Gertch was trying to make a racial remark there--though I do know what Biden comment you're referring to. I think Gertch was trying to say that it seems Steele has a natural talent for extemporaneous speech.

You're right. I absolutely wasn't making a racial remark. Geez, some people must be so racist they think everyone else is.

and I voted for him based
on his character and ideals. Not his color.

I suppose that's possible since CNN, NBC et al didn't really delve into that side of the man.

 

[Red Ranger]

^It's a conservative fantasy that the media completely fawned all over Obama. I guess you missed the coverage from all the media on Rev. Wright's inflammatory speeches, eventually forcing Obama to make a total break from his long-time pastor, how his lack of specifics on how his policies would actually work were picked apart by many in the so-called "liberal media," and how his tax plan was combed over -- as was McCain's. Don't worry, I get it -- selective perception, bless your heart, Gertch!

The media also dismissed certain stories about McCain, that he's supposedly a chronic gambler, and very quickly dismissed a story in The New York Times that McCain had an affair with a staffer -- once again, putting the lie to the "liberal media" canard. If it were, wouldn't they have gone after such reports with partisan zeal? As a former journalist myself, I can tell you that the media isn't as liberal as you think. I'd say half my colleagues were conservative, the other half liberal, and in the ranks of editors and publishers, more of them were conservative or libertarian. And even the liberals weren't that liberal -- some were of the aspiring "limousine liberal" stripe, in other words, just barely, or watered down, liberals.

Back to Michael Steele, it may be he was picked because of his abilities. I think you all should go back to my original post and read it -- I posited two different views. Again, there goes that selective memory. Or is it lack of reading comprehension, mayhap?

Red Ranger

 

[Red Ranger]

it's the heavy-handed approach some in Congress have used to enforce immigration laws that is offensive. There is a historical bias against immigrants from Latin America -- and other parts of the world -- codified by law in the form of quotas on some groups, but unrestricted immigration from Europe and other, "desirable" countries.

Now, this is a "bi-partisan" flaw, as there are several Democrats who are also just as border-control-crazy as some Republicans. I heard a phrase from the new junior Democratic Senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand, "right-sizing" immigration. It implies a thoughtful, multi-pronged approach to the issue that neither demonizes nor soft-pedals the issue.

What's been too often a major part of the GOP's approach is demonizing Latino immigrants. You never hear a hue and cry about modern Irish immigrants who work just as hard as Latino immigrants, for example. I maintain there is a racist component to the immigration issue. Very little talk, for example, of punishing the Americans who knowingly employ illegals. That's an example of the hypocrisy I see from the GOP.

I think most Republicans do call for punishing employers. While you complain about heavy-handedness, I don't like the way that many politicians insist that their plan is The Compromise, that it's not amnesty because illegal immigrants would have to hold a job, pay fines, get in the back of the line and learn English, that's earning citizenship; those don't seem like stringent requirements.
If there is legalization without securing the border, then that would seem to encourage more illegal immigration and we'd go through this again.

There's a difference between "calling for" and actually doing something about punishing these employers who are breaking the law.

Let me make something clear as crystal. I do agree that the borders should be secured. Again, the trouble is many who advocate for that aren't hollering as much about the northern border with Canada. In case you all forgot, that's how some of the terrorists got into the U.S.

And as I did say clearly in a previous post, our ports still remain porous, and so border policy must be tigtened there as well. A difficult task, to be sure, but worth it.

One of the few things I agreed with Bush on was a need for a guest workers program. Such a program is consistent with the right-sizing approach to immigration. As I recall, many in his own party were cool to that idea, as were some Democrats.

One more thing (for now): Sen. Chris Dodd from Conn. has been a critic of the approach to illegal immigration, but he, as a liberal who speaks fluent Spanish, has greater cache in this department than other nativist members of Congress.

Red Ranger