Redstate

If Bush wants putting the first Hispanic on the Sup Court as part of his legacy, then he might as well satisfy principle as well and pick Emilio Garza.

I seriously doubt, however, that it will win a significant amount of latinos over for the GOP.  

Likewise, much of what you say is wishful thinking, though I applaud you for not citing the incorrect 44% figure often cited as Bush's share of the latino vote in 2004 (it was more likely in the high 30s to as high as 40).  

It is true that Hispanics generally hold conservative views on social issues, but then again, so to do black Americans on many of them.  This works out well for the conservative agenda when a direct vote is held, like say the many statewide bans on gay marriage, but the same overall latino electorate will turn around and vote for Democrats higher up on the ballot. And in some cases, initially high Hispanic support for a a conservative proposition will collapse once the demagoguery plays it course, as was seen with the anti-racial preferences measure that passed in California ten years ago.  

I don't have any stats on the economic prosperity of Asians, but it is generally thought they are doing well and that they assimilate very well.  Yet it is also the case that they have moved towards the Democrats over the last decade or so.  I think 1992 was the last time a GOP candidate carried the Asian vote.  

And we shouldn't forget that it is possible to gain relatively, like Bush did, and still lose absolutely if the population in question is growing fast enough.  

So as of now, the conventional wisdom you spoke of -- which I would restate as 'more mass immigration eventually equals many more Democrats' -- is true.  That doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue aggressive outreach (which would be easier in an environment of less immigration) to latinos, as obvously we should, but we also shouldn't fool ourselves about the likely limits of it.  And we can be sure that any immigration reform that in any way holds true to conservative principles will be assailed as xenophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic, and mean-spirited (as Hillary just did) by the Left and the ethnic interest/grievance groups.  And if we cave, and grant amnesty as well as increases in legal immigration (both of which are opposed by most Americans), then we shouldn't expect it to win over many latinos, as Reagan's amnesty did not result in a shift in their loyalties to the GOP.

With shifting demographics, the GOP will have to do as well as Bush (39%-45%) in 2004 and even better.  Fortunately for us, with the right policies, Hispanics will become reliable GOP voters.  Coming from a part-Hispanic (albeit Cuban) family, I believe that the GOP must continue the offensive in winning over these new swing voters.  Almost all Hispanics are pro-life, and the rate of new entrepreneurs among Hispanics is currently higher than any other group.  [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/chavez1.asp]

To ensure our continued gains among Hispanics, a good course of action would be:

1. Continue to Articulate & Advance Abortion Opposition
   
2. Never Raise Taxes
   
3. Speak in a language that doesn't offend Latinos.  (My GF complained about Laura Ingraham the other day [even asked if she were a racist], and some other's often have a tendency to speak in an unwelcoming tone.) Oppose paleoconservatism, neobuchananism, and "SPEAK ENGLISH DAMNIT" type rhetoric.
   
4. Oppose deportation policies of non-felons (Those in jail should be deported) and support Bush's Idea for a guest worker program.  Oppose paleoconservatism and "SPEAK ENGLISH DAMMIT" type rhetoric.
   
5. Nominate Emilio Garza, Mel Martinez, or Raoul Cantero as the next originalist to the Supreme Court.
   
6. Get Jeb Bush to run for President in '12 or '16.  Jeb Bush is even more popular w/ Hispanics than George, he's a solid conservative (would be our best '08 candidate, if not for the last name).  He speaks Spanish (George is a laughing-stock when he tries!!!), his wife is Hispanic, and he's Catholic.
   

I'd rate this a 5.

Some of your suggestions offer a good illustration of the hole the GOP has dug itself into, and the delicate maneuvering it thinks it must engage in to navigate this obstacle course.

Your call for Republicans to speak in a welcoming tone is a good example.  The problem, of course, is that 'welcoming' is defined by the Left -- the mainstream media, Democrats, and ethnic interest/grievance groups.  You can qualify and begin every statement on immigration with some nice, warm and fuzzy language about how much you love immigrants and how great you think immigration is, but if it is followed by calls for conservative policy (i.e. no amnesty, and no increase in legal immigration, border fence, barring of public services for illegal aliens, etc), then it will be blasted as 'unwelcoming', and the whole host of other bogus charges -- xenophobic, bigoted, anti-immigrant, anti-immigration, anti-Hispanic, etc.  

And let's not fool ourselves about what would happen if we basically adopt the pro-mass immigration policies.  Why would Hispanics transfer their allegiance to the GOP when the Democrats have been pushing for the same thing all along?  They'll claim the 'credit', and they'll likely receive it.

So in effect, we are left in the very unfriendly position of having to fight uphill, to play by the Left's pc rules of engagment.  That's bad for Republicans and conservatism.  

And Bush almost certainly did not win over 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004.  Wishing those flawed exit poll results for latinos were true won't make it so.  

All polls showed him w/ between 39%-44%.  If anything Bush's support was UNDERSTATED across the board in these flawed exit polls.  None of the polls showed Bush with more support than he actually had when the votes were tallied.  

I have a question: when the demographics of the country switch and less and less of the country is white, how do you plan on making up on the difference in votes?  My plan is simple, easy, and adhers to conservative principles.  There is no need to abandon conservatism (excluding Buchanan-paleoconservatism) in achieving the desired result (GOP >50% Hispanic vote).

I'm not pro mass immigration --if fact we should have a much tougher boarder to stop illegals from getting in.  However, once they are here we should adapt to the political and economic realities of the situation.  

GARZA/CANTERO FOR SCOTUS.

of plagiarism, in response to:

My plan is simple, easy, and adhers to conservative principles.

For every complex problem, there's a simple solution, and it's wrong.  

I have a question: when the demographics of the country switch and less and less of the country is white, how do you plan on making up on the difference in votes?

I think the GOP has a tough row to hoe.  It can win Texas, where whites are a bare minority, because it gets 75% of the white vote.  It will not duplicate those results outside of the South.  As to winning the "hispanic" vote, the GOP can not outcompete the Democrats at ethnic pandering while maintaining its fragile coalition of middle class churchgoing whites and big business.  Something will have to give.

If it adheres to conservatives principles (which it does)...If you've ever read Thomas Sowell you know that the pursuit of the black vote has been futile because it has abandoned these principles in the pursuit of pandering.  (How about Newt apologizing to JesseJackson after the great J.C. Watts called Jackson a "race hustling poverty pimp" --called a spade a spade.)  

The fact is that Hispanic culture is very similar to Italian culture, and most Italian Americans vote Republican.  The only thing that will scare Hispanics away from doing the same is paleoconservative rhetoric and sonsensinbrener legislation.

meant "nonsensinbrener" legislation...