| « In praise of Oprah Winfrey: from a conservative. | Univision Republican Debate in Spanish » |
Commentary on Republican Univision Spanish debate
12/10/07
Let me preface my commentary by stating that the Spanish-speaking Hispanic-American is, in fact, more ignorant (ignorant in the lack-of-knowledge sense) about politics than the average American. How can they not be? They don't have conservative talk radio; Spanish language television and newspapers are more slanted than the New York Times; and they have much less diversity in their representation. With the deck stacked so much against Republicans, it's a wonder that Republicans get any votes at all. But they do because Hispanics are natural conservatives and I'm not just repeating Republican happy talk. I happen to work and live in 90%+ Hispanic neighborhood and whenever I present conservative arguments to Hispanics, I always get the following two reactions: Jaw-dropping shock at having heard a contrary opinion followed by assenting nods. I could feel the change in air pressure from the millions of nods in Hispanic households tonight.
On to the debate: The Univision debate was more of a public relations press conference for Republican ideas than a debate. Nobody quarreled with each other except for Paul and the audience which I'll get to later. They didn't even disagree much. Republicans can be proud that, unlike the Democratic slobberfest a couple of months ago, Republicans didn't pander to the Hispanic audience- and the audience loved them for it. The only boos were for Paul and the audience often gave the candidates warm applause, much to the visible annoyance of the moderators.
If the candidates seemed condescending towards Hispanics, it was because the question were absurd: "What would you do about the percentage of Hispanics who drop out of school?" "Are conservatives angry that you're here?" What would you do to convince Hispanics to support the war?" As a joke, I would have said, "I would write Mariachi songs promoting the "Surge" strategy." Being smarter than me, the candidates politely stuck to their standard lines and refused to bite the race bait. They calmly explained that you have to have immigration laws, that we need to win in Iraq, etc. I want to believe that Univision chose questions to make Republicans look bad and not because most Hispanics are selfish children angry that Republicans won't break the rules for them.
If there was a low point, it was the very first question when the generally Dem.-shilling moderators asked why support for Republicans decreased between 2004 and 2006. Romney gave the standard Republican line that it was because Republicans increased spending and abandoned their "conservative principals." Giuliani merely expressed hope that it would increase. McCain said that it had to do something with the tone of illegal alien debate. Huckabee blamed a lack of communication. All of them were wrong or dodging to some extent.
They praised bilingualism, but supported some form of English-only policy. Paul, for example, said that federal business should be conducted in English. There was agreement on Iraq except for you-know-who. Quickly:
Policy-wise, the sonambulant Thompson was the most conservative. He said that education policy wasn't a federal government responsibility and held firm on immigration. He gave a convoluted answer to the loaded: "Would you separate kids from their illegal alien parents?" but I think he would.
Romney didn't say anything new. He talked about how he fired his gardener for hiring illegal immigrants- and the audience applauded him for it! He wouldn't support amnesty.
Huckabee, true to form, gave a compassionate conservative answer to the education question. Ridiculously, he said that kids drop out of high school because they're bored (more bored than Asians?). More distressing was his solution: Start some Kennedy-style curriculum-renewal presumably with gobs of federal cash.
Hunter proved that conservatives can pander to minorities as well. Quite out-of-place, he repeatedly contrasted the pro-democracy Republican policies in Latin-America to the Commie-loving Democratic ones. He also sniped at JFK. He did have the best line with the brilliant distinction: "Democrats think that America is great because of what the government does; I think it's better because of what people do." I'm using that!
McCain was the same old. He admitted that Americans rejected his amnesty bill because they want enforcement first. He praised Hispanics for their sacrifices in war. He said that illegal immigration is partially our fault for our irresponsibility.
In this forum, Giuliani didn't suck up the energy like he normally does. He didn't do poorly either. He wants I.D. cards, a fence, and some kind of amnesty, afterwards.
Finally, Ron Paul, the most unpopular person in the room except for the guy in the back with the Tancredo haircut, gave the worst answers. Asked why Hispanics are angry (Again, this was an unfair question. I don't think it's too true that Hispanics are angry, but if it is: Don't be so sensitive, Hispanics. Can anybody talk about immigration in a way that wouldn't upset you?), he said it was because of talk of I.D. cards, yet more evidence that Paul shoehorns all policy questions into Libertarian ideology. The audience heartily booed Paul for some of his foreign policy stances.
I understand that the candidates debated in front of a more conservative Cuban-American audience, but I still think that they did well tonight and helped themselves for November.
I didn't miss Tancredo.
5 comments
First, when introduced, Dr. Paul received one of the loudest applauses from the audience (probably in the top two).
Second, he was CHEERED for his Iraq answer. He did receive boos regarding his comments on talking and trading with Cuba.
Being in Florida, the crowd was stacked with anti-Castro neoconservative Cubans. Cubans don't necessarily represent the majority of Latinos in America, as they are anti-war in general, and are against the current neocon warmonger big government attitude.
Dr. Paul is a principled, honest man who sure doesn't pander.
As for the moderators, I though they were professional. Prior to the debate, the guy ( George Ramos ), was on another show and mentioned that it was going to be difficult for the Republicans to try to get Hispanic voters on their side.
I don't think they were biased but they asked difficult questions. And they all related to Hispanics. I don't think you should insult them for running a debate in the fashion they did.
After all, there have been Jewish debates and the Christian family values debate. Those were had fairly one sided questions. That was there decision.
They were tough questions and if you want to become President, you should be able to answer ALL questions.
Until this old decrepit, and tired group of Republican candidates started to hit on the issue of Illegal inmigration (along with the mentally impaired Lou Dobbs) with such hate, viciousness and inhumanity, I did not know that illegal inmigration was the number one national security threat to this nation. I thought it was Alkaeda...oh no...WMD in....Irak? Iran? I am confused.
This issue is really disgusting. When SOMETHING brings the worst of people, that SOMETHING simply can not be good. It is a sad situation and many are being hypnotized to believing that getting rid of the 12-14 million illegals will automatically solve all the problems the US faces now. The trillion deficit will automatically disappear, the war in Irak will be over and all the sectarian groups there will sing Kumbaya at Capitol Hill because the illegals are out. There will be no recession, no child will be left behind, the energy crisis will be solved, the globe will stop from warming, and America will be loved and respected all over the world. If that is what you think shipping these 14 million illegals will accomplish, then the Reps are right on.
I am furious at how Jorge Ramos and Maria Elvira Salazar handled this "meeting" . They let down a lot of people and they wasted an opportunity. As for Hispanics in that audience they were pittful.
Comment feed for this post
