Pat Buchanan: Is the GOP Headed for the Boneyard?

Red Baron

Paleo-Conservative
_______________
Leave it to Pat to get right down to the core issues. Here's what a Paleo-Conservative sounds like.

Fair Use Cited
------------

Buchanan: Is the GOP Headed for the Boneyard?

By: Patrick J. Buchanan
11/9/2012 01:05 AM


After its second defeat at the hands of Barack Obama, under whom unemployment has never been lower than the day George W. Bush left office, the Republican Party has at last awakened to its existential crisis.

Eighteen states have voted Democratic in six straight elections. Among the six are four of our most populous: New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois and California. And Obama has now won two of the three remaining mega-states, Ohio and Florida, twice.

Only Texas remains secure — for now.

At the presidential level, the Republican Party is at death’s door.

Yet one already sees the same physicians writing prescriptions for the same drugs that have been killing the GOP since W’s dad got the smallest share of the vote by a Republican candidate since William Howard Taft in 1912.

In ascertaining the cause of the GOP’s critical condition, let us use Occam’s razor — the principle that the simplest explanation is often the right one.

Would the GOP wipeout in those heavily Catholic, ethnic, socially conservative, blue-collar bastions of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Illinois, which Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan swept, have anything to do with the fact that the United States since 2000 has lost 6 million manufacturing jobs and 55,000 factories?

Where did all those jobs and factories go? We know where.

They were outsourced. And in the deindustrialization of America, the Republican Party has been a culpable co-conspirator.

Unlike family patriarch Sen. Prescott Bush, who voted with Barry Goldwater and Strom Thurmond against JFK’s free-trade deal, Bush I and II pumped for NAFTA, GATT, the WTO and opening America’s borders to all goods made by our new friends in the People’s Republic of China.

Swiftly, U.S. multinationals shut factories here, laid off workers, outsourced production to Asia and China, and brought their finished goods back, tax-free, to sell in the U.S.A.

Profits soared, as did the salaries of the outsourcing executives.

And their former workers? They headed for the service sector, along with their wives, to keep up on the mortgage payment, keep the kids in Catholic school and pay for the health insurance the family had lost.

Tuesday, these ex-Reagan Democrats came out to vote against some guy from Bain Capital they had been told in ads all summer was a big-time outsourcer who wrote in 2008, “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt!”

Yes, the simplest explanation is often the right one.

Republicans are also falling all over one another to express a love of Hispanics, after Mitt won only 27 percent of a Hispanic vote that is now 10 percent of the national vote.

We face demographic disaster, they are wailing. We must win a larger share of the Hispanic vote or we are doomed.

And what is the proposed solution to the GOP’s Hispanic problem, coming even from those supposedly on the realistic right?

Amnesty for the illegals! Stop talking about a border fence and self-deportation. Drop the employer sanctions. Make the GOP a welcoming party.

And what might be problematic about following this advice?

First, it will enrage populist conservatives who supported the GOP because they believed the party’s pledges to oppose amnesty, secure the border and stop illegals from taking jobs from Americans.

And in return for double-crossing these folks and losing their votes, what would be gained by amnesty for, say, 10 million illegal aliens?

Assume in a decade all 10 million became citizens and voted like the Hispanics, black folks and Asians already here. The best the GOP could expect — the Bush share in 2004 — would be 40 percent, or 4 million of those votes.

But if Tuesday’s percentages held, Democrats would get not just 6 million, but 7 million new votes to the GOP’s less than 3 million.

Thus, if we assume the percentages of the last three elections hold, the Democratic Party would eventually gain from an amnesty a net of between 2 and 4 million new voters.

Easy to understand why Democrats are for this. But why would a Republican Party that is not suicidally inclined favor it?

Still, the GOP crisis is not so much illegal as legal immigration. Forty million legal immigrants have arrived in recent decades. Some 85 percent come from Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. Most arrived lacking the academic, language and labor skills to compete for high-paying jobs.

What does government do for them?

Subsidizes their housing and provides free education for their kids from Head Start through K-12, plus food stamps and school lunches, Pell Grants and student loans for college, Medicaid if they are sick, earned income tax credits if they work and 99 weeks of unemployment checks if they lose their job.

These are people who depend upon government.

Why would they vote for a party that is going to cut taxes they do not pay, but take away government benefits they do receive?

Again it needs be said. When the country looks like California demographically, it will look like California politically. Republicans are not whistling past the graveyard. They are right at the entrance.

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/11/09/pat-buchanan-is-the-gop-headed-for-the-boneyard/
 
"...Is the GOP Headed for the Boneyard?..."


Not if the Donkey candidates for 2016 are Hillary and laugh/gaff a minute Joe...
 

Red Baron

Paleo-Conservative
_______________
The GOP needs to focus on one thing, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, in my opinion.

If one can address the job situation, a tremendous number of other issues are dealt with without removing the focus from jobs.

Private sector manufacturing employment is the only thing that generates real wealth and growth. Anything else is merely passing the same dollar between different hands.

Real wealth creation prevents debasement of the currency.

Tax revenue goes up with private sector jobs and does it without the need to raise taxes. Taxes can actually decrease when job creation goes up.

Social Security and Medicare can regain funding and avoid draconian reductions in service.

Fear and loathing amongst the various social and ethnic groups is reduced if people have some sort of premise of upward mobility via an expanding job market. Right now, everybody is fighting everybody else for a shrinking piece of the pie.

Aging infrastructure can be repaired and even improved.

It’s all about the jobs folks.

It’s time to jettison the Neo-Cons and the East Coast Country Club Republicans and focus on what is in the long term best interests of this country.

Romney was a seriously flawed choice as a presidential candidate. Exactly when the entire debate could have been won by focusing on jobs, we got a squishy Neo-Con Corporate Raider as the Republican Agent of Change.

Major Fail
 
The GOP needs to focus on one thing, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, in my opinion....QUOTE]


Ah, the very heart of the problem.

And - judging from the so-called 'debates - the "laser-beam" has not only lost its focus, but its power source as well regarding the 'jobs' issue.

One side actually believes that govt. can magically 'create' real jobs - the other team had almost no plan that the voters could understand.

How'd that work out for the USA?
 

Countrybumpkin

Veteran Member
I think that by focusing on jobs, they cut their throat. Todays welfare culture does not want jobs-they want people to give them stuff. Welfare, food stamps, free housing...the Republicans do not stand for that, thus lost. After 4 years of Obama, I am not sure we will ever get people of that mindset back to seeing things without the rose colored glasses on. Once you get something for nothing, why would you want to start paying for it? Don't know what the answers are, but jobs are one thing O supporters do not want.
 

Red Baron

Paleo-Conservative
_______________
The whole 47% thing was so stupid and clueless by Romney. He was stupid to say it and so clueless he didn't understand how to recover from his gaff.

Only about 10% of the population are true welfare recipients. It has been that way since the Beginning of Time and always will be so.

The rest of the "47%" are actually people who have earned and paid for the benefits they are receiving.

Romney stupidly lumped retirees, armed forces members, unemployed people, people injured at the workplace etc. etc. as being some kind of welfare queens. The point is, all those people had jobs and -paid- for those benefits.

It's all about jobs. Villifying people who have jobs and one day may actually want to recieve their benefits were essentially told by Romney that he is going after the benefits that people paid for and earned.
 
Top