The Reminder

John McCain wants Hispanic America to remember that he's not from the "I hate you and blame you for all the country's problems" wing of the GOP:

I think it's a pretty shrewd ad. Unlike white or black Anglos, Latino voters tend to eschew culture-based voting and instead act the way Thomas Frank thinks everyone should act with the poorer ones being Democrats and the richer ones being Republicans, and so the overall edge going Democratic given the income distribution. The risk for Republicans is that the orgy of hate we saw from their side in 2006-2007 will push many more prosperous Hispanics over to the Democratic side. McCain's mission is to communicate "I'm not a racist" to his most likely Hispanic supporters, and given the tendency of small business owners everywhere to love the GOP a specific focus on small business seems smart.

Comments

Because McCain is not anti-immigrant, this can be Obama's achilles heel. He needs to go along the lines of McCain but go further than that.

Posted by Micheline | May 8, 2008 1:30 PM

Because McCain is not anti-immigrant, this can be Obama's achilles heel. He needs to go along the lines of McCain but go further than that.

Posted by Micheline | May 8, 2008 1:31 PM

Because McCain is not anti-immigrant, this can be Obama's achilles heel. He needs to go along the lines of McCain but go further than that.

Posted by Micheline | May 8, 2008 1:31 PM

The idea that the Republicans can get Hispanics votes is laughable. It is Karl Rove's wet dream and one of the reasons that the Republican Party is in collapse. The amount of pandering that will be required to get one more Hispanic vote loses several white voters. Look at the debacle of the proposed amnesty program.

McCain is too stupid to realize that increased immigration and amnesty will make the Republican party irrelevant faster. No wonder he thinks he can pander to them.

Posted by superdestroyer | May 8, 2008 1:32 PM

What's a black Anglo? A fisherman?

Posted by Chef Jim | May 8, 2008 1:32 PM

The idea that the Republicans can get Hispanics votes is laughable. It is Karl Rove's wet dream and one of the reasons that the Republican Party is in collapse. The amount of pandering that will be required to get one more Hispanic vote loses several white voters. Look at the debacle of the proposed amnesty program.

McCain is too stupid to realize that increased immigration and amnesty will make the Republican party irrelevant faster. No wonder he thinks he can pander to them.

Posted by superdestroyer | May 8, 2008 1:35 PM

McCain voted to make English the official language of the United States and now he's running ads in Spanish. The McCain haters on the right are going to go bananas when they see this ad. It's like Clinton's gas tax pander. Maybe this ad is a good idea all other things being equal but there are GOP voters who will see this and cast a protest vote for Bob Barr for President.

Posted by joejoejoe | May 8, 2008 1:38 PM

No GOP leaders are "anti-immigrant", and none "hate" Hispanics nor "blame [them] for all the country's problems", nor was there an "orgy of hate".

Unfortunately, childish and corrupt race-baiting is all one gets from MattY, not reasoned analysis.

Meanwhile, McCain is going to be giving credibility to the group that gave the guy who said this an award:

"We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him."

The group McCain is going to speak to gave the guy who said that an award. That group has links to the Democratic Party, such as Chris Dodd trying to give them millions of dollars for a race-based program.

Click my name and look through my archives if you want to find out all the many things about this issue that MattY doesn't know.

And, should MattY ever want to debate this issue, let me know.

Posted by TLB | May 8, 2008 1:40 PM

OT (on MSNBC):
Pat Buchanan: "The white working class hasn't cottoned to Obama."

Howard Wolfson: "West Virginia is a key swing state." (WV has 5 EV)

Posted by joejoejoe | May 8, 2008 1:42 PM

Click my name and look through my archives if you want to find out all the many things about this issue that MattY doesn't know.

Only way you're going to get page views from me is if you promise porn.

Posted by daveNYC | May 8, 2008 1:51 PM

Did anyone else notice that the English voice over differed with the Spanish text? Particularly, McCain says he wants a "pro-innovation immigration policy," while the bullet point says his plan includes "innovations in immigration." I know the bullet points on these commercials are often paraphrasing, but usually the reader and listener speak the same language. "Pro-innovation immigration" seems to be more suggestive of letting in educated experts (which we certainly should do more of,) while "innovations in immigration" seems to be more suggestive that the family members of the Spanish speaking audience might fit under his plan. Any thoughts from anyone who speaks better Spanish than me?

Posted by ben | May 8, 2008 2:02 PM

"Only way you're going to get page views from me is if you promise porn.

Posted by daveNYC | May 8, 2008 1:51 PM"

Sadly, he would probably only post explicitly white-only porn. Am I the only one thinking wacko Kelly is suffering from "A Boy Named Sue" syndrome?

Posted by Reality Man | May 8, 2008 2:04 PM

I would also point out that many older hispanics feel aggrieved against blacks and are reluctant or hostile to Obama because they see his as part of a perceived pattern to uplift blacks at the expense of hispanics.

There is some evidence of this pattern in certain areas, but 1) No evidence for Obama being part of it 2) This is also a function of white attention in regards to African American concerns to the exclusion of other colors.

So combine this with McCain not being crazy anti-immigrant and you have a recipe for trouble.

Posted by MNPundit | May 8, 2008 2:05 PM

I'm not sure the idea that you should expect rich people to support policies broadly designed to benefit the rich and poor people to do the inverse is an idea that originates with Thomas Frank in 2004.

Posted by ryannyc | May 8, 2008 2:10 PM

"The risk for Republicans is that the orgy of hate we saw from their side in 2006-2007"

Can you provide any examples of this, Matt. Because I don't remember anything "hateful" being said by GOPers. Unless, of course, your definition of "hate" includes public policy proposals to deal with the 12 million illegal aliens that are unlawfully in this country.

Are you so unable to debate the merits of these proposals that you have resort to the typical liberal response of calling people with whom you disagree with as hateful? Isn't that a job best left to the Kossacks and their "Four legs good, two legs bad" bleating that passes for elvated discourse over there?

Posted by Chicounsel | May 8, 2008 2:17 PM

Would MattY care to offer a rebuttal to this flier which hopefully others will pass out at Obama's events? It has some questions on this topic that he's going to have difficulty with, and, given the fact that he hasn't really been questioned before and even when the MSM came close he got flustered I don't think he's going to do so well. And, considering the view count for that page I think that eventually at least one person is going to try to ask him one of those questions.

As for debating MattY, hopefully he'll jump in and tell me what I need to do to make that happen. The email attached to this comment works.

Posted by TLB | May 8, 2008 2:20 PM

Well, at least poor Matt is no longer pretending to be a "Latino pundit". Using a phrase like "black Anglos" would anyway be a dead giveaway...

And it's absolutely true that the political alignments of Latino voters tend to be overwhelmingly based upon "class" rather than "race/ethnicity". Since the vast majority of Latinos today are working-class, to a first approximation they'll tend to vote like working-class Anglos...which is exactly where Obama's been absolutely weakest...which is a huge problem for his campaign...

Posted by RKU | May 8, 2008 2:20 PM

So combine this with McCain not being crazy anti-immigrant and you have a recipe for trouble.

Yeah, but you can call him crazy anti-immigrant, then sit back and laugh as he tries to split hairs in such a way that he doesn't alienate either anti-immigrants or immigrants.

Posted by daveNYC | May 8, 2008 2:23 PM

No GOP leaders are "anti-immigrant", and none "hate" Hispanics nor "blame [them] for all the country's problems", nor was there an "orgy of hate".

Considering this is from a guy who is virulently anti-immigrant, I'm not sure this post carries a lot of weight.

Posted by Seitz | May 8, 2008 2:26 PM

Royalties please.

Posted by feist | May 8, 2008 2:34 PM

"The idea that the Republicans can get Hispanics votes is laughable. It is Karl Rove's wet dream"

I think it was more Ken Mehlman's idea, but it was as stupid as the GOP's outreach to blacks. The GOP's natural appeal is to entrepreneurial groups, and although there entrepreneurs among blacks and Latinos, there are disproportionately fewer of them than in other demographic groups, and there is disproportionately more dependence on government. If you're dependent on government transfer payments, it makes sense to vote Democratic, because the Democrats are more likely to increase those payments at the expensive of net tax payers.

I think the problem here is that neither Mehlman nor Rove have a lot of experience with everyday blacks or Mexican-Americans. They probably are both friends with J.C. Watts and figure there are another 10 million of him hiding in the black community, just waiting to vote Republican. They both probably have some Cuban-American businessman friends from Miami and delude themselves that these guys have anything in common politically with Mexican-American busboys and landscapers.

"And, should MattY ever want to debate this issue, let me know."

How about it, Matt? Could be a compelling BloggingHeads episode. Or maybe you could invite this fellow to an episode of The Table.

Posted by Fred | May 8, 2008 2:42 PM

Anglo = Anglophone

Posted by Oracle | May 8, 2008 2:43 PM

Seitz says: Considering this is from a guy who is virulently anti-immigrant, I'm not sure this post carries a lot of weight.

Since you're referring to me, feel free to provide examples. Needless to say, things will get much more complicated when you actually think them through.

Fred writes: Could be a compelling BloggingHeads episode. Or maybe you could invite this fellow to an episode of The Table.

I don't know about The Table, since that would require The Atlantic to pay my way to NYC or DC. If they want to hold it in ME or NH in late summer, I will however rush to accept as I have dates with a couple mountains there.

Posted by TLB | May 8, 2008 2:50 PM

speaking of McCain, guess who will never ever never release her tax returns:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080508/ap_on_el_pr/cindy_mccain_taxes

Posted by freddiemac | May 8, 2008 2:54 PM

I think the problem here is that neither Mehlman nor Rove have a lot of experience with everyday blacks or Mexican-Americans

Well, I'd probably agree with "Fred" about the ignorance/stupidity of Mehlman and Rove on these sorts of ethnicity issues. But I'd probably put "Fred" into the exact same category, at least with regard to Latinos.

For example, he claims that Mexican-Americans are massively dependent on "governmental transfer payments", which is just utter nonsense. The only (admittedly sizable) exception is the cost of local public schooling, which isn't usually regarded as a "transfer payment".

Interestingly enough, Latinos tend to be far *less* likely to receive government payments or to be employed by the government or in government-dominated sectors than Anglos or especially blacks. As a crude rule-of-thumb, the farther you get from government/regulation, the more likely you'll be to find Latinos.

Since "Fred" has on numerous occasions indicated that his personal background is (I think) East Coast/NYC area and financial services, it's unclear whether he's ever had any significant degree of personal contact with Latinos (excerpt for PR's, who are the one exception to the general rule). Therefore, I find it more than a little amusing that he (rightfully) applies this exact criticism to Rove and Mehlman!

Posted by RKU | May 8, 2008 3:00 PM

re: thomas frank
i thought he was saying that the poor should be voting their economic interests, as having no money is more important than gay marriage, for instance ... while the rich have the freedom to vote whatever interests they want.

so, rich states don't 'logically' go republican, but poor states should 'logically' go democratic.

Posted by holdup | May 8, 2008 3:01 PM

"No GOP leaders are "anti-immigrant", and none "hate" Hispanics nor "blame [them] for all the country's problems", nor was there an "orgy of hate"."

Really? Could have fooled me.

I don't get why people are saying McCain is stupid for this. It's one of the few edges he has, and he should obviously try to use his proven record of being pro-immigration (against mega-resistance from his own party) to woo Hispanic voters.

On this issue alone, I trust McCain to push for reforming our insane immigration system (namely: allowing undocumented workers to become documented fairly, and relaxing the restrictions on future immigration so this never becomes an issue again) far more than I do Clinton.

Think about the effect ads like this will have, not just on Hispanic voters, but on moderates like me. Immigration is one of my top issues. I would never have even considered voting for one of the hardliner anti-immigration Republican candidates. This is the most appealing aspect of McCain to me.

Posted by Andrew | May 8, 2008 3:28 PM

"But I'd probably put "Fred" into the exact same category, at least with regard to Latinos."

You'd be wrong, "RKU". I live in a town with significant black and Latino populations, and I spent a decade in predominantly-black public schools that had more Latinos than whites. I also served in the Army Reserve for several years, where there was no shortage of blacks or Latinos. I probably have more experience with every day blacks and Latinos than most of the commenters on this blog. Our local Latinos aren't primarily Puerto Ricans, as you claim; they are mostly of Mexican and Central American origin.

"Interestingly enough, Latinos tend to be far *less* likely to receive government payments or to be employed by the government or in government-dominated sectors than Anglos or especially blacks."

You have to make a distinction here between Latinos who are here illegally and those who are citizens or legal residents. Clearly the illegals aren't eligible for the same benefits or government employment (yet), but they still consume more in government benefits and services than they pay in taxes. For example, illegals who file income taxes (and they are encouraged to do so; the IRS makes it clear that it doesn't make a practice of sharing info with ICE) are eligible for the EITC. Similarly, they rarely have health insurance, so when they get sick, or get pregnant, they go to the emergency room and don't pay. Puerto Ricans, who are of course all American citizens, have high rates of welfare dependency.

Posted by Fred | May 8, 2008 3:48 PM

Remember where does the "yes we can" slogan comes from?

Hint: "si se puede" is not a translation. It is the original.

Posted by Egócrata | May 8, 2008 3:49 PM

Andrew says: Really? Could have fooled me.

I'm sure that's not a rare occurrence, considering that you, as with another person above, falsely referred to "anti-immigration Republican candidates". Whether pandering will work for McCain isn't known, but what he and the Dems are doing isn't in the best interests of the U.S. Not only would his plans give more power to the group I mentioned above, but one of his staff members - someone doing outreach for him - is a former cabinet-level official with the Mexican government.

Also, "relaxing the restrictions on future immigration" will absolutely guarantee that this does in fact become "an issue again". It will give more power to those who currently support illegal activity and will lead to more of it. It will give even more power to the MexicanGovernment; they've explicitly stated that they're going to be working with U.S. non-profits to push their agenda, and they encouraged their citizens and others in the U.S. to push that agenda. McCain and the Dems might not care about giving a foreign government political power inside the U.S., but the vast majority of Americans will when McCain and the Dems are finally questioned about this.

Posted by TLB | May 8, 2008 4:01 PM

It must be sad to be so filled with hatred. This country was once known for its openness to immigration, and it is that past immigration that has made the US the economically successful nation it is today.

You think millions of people come to this country illegally because they want to come illegally? They want to come, period. They want to come so bad they don't care about our stupid immigration policies. If the US were to fling its arms open to the world and fulfill the words written on the statue of liberty once again, it would regain the economic status that is rapidly slipping away from it.

It's no use pretending that a hefty portion of the Republican party has sold its soul to groups that not only hate illegal immigrants, but immigrants in general. Particularly Mexicans, Arabs, Chinese...really anyone not a White European. Go look up the US's quota based immigration system sometime. It's a racist's wet dream.

McCain (and Bush!) win respect from me because they have basically ignored the angry masses spurred on by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

Absolutely the only way to prevent workers from coming here illegally is to make it easy and cheap for them to come here legally. Given the choice, there won't be anyone who sneaks across the border except the real criminals.

Posted by Andrew | May 8, 2008 4:13 PM

Importing tens of millions of 4th grade dropouts to this country today is a bad policy. Even honest liberal economists like Paul Krugman acknowledge this.

A hundred years ago, America had industries like textiles that required lots of unskilled workers; those particular industries are gone and aren't coming back. A hundred years ago, there was no welfare, Medicaid or other forms of government assistance. Immigrants who couldn't hack it here often got back on the boat and went home; nearly half did this.

To paraphrase Peter Drucker, immigrants with yesterday's skills (or lack of skills) aren't a fit for tomorrow's jobs. A good starting point for an intelligent and honest debate about what sort of immigration policy America should have would be to consider the immigration policies Canada and Australia have.

Posted by Fred | May 8, 2008 4:59 PM

I think something other than immigration or entrepreneurial issues is going on here. A psychologist friend once told me about studies on the ethnic preferences of minorities. It turned out that minorities unconsciously apply exactly the same racial hierarchy as the dominant majority, except that they place their own group at the top. E.g. if dominant group A applies hierarchy A-B-C-D-E, group D will apply hierarchy D-A-B-C-E.

What this means is that Hispanics, in the absence of a Hispanic candidate, will be more comfortable with a white candidate than with a black one. McCain is simply trying to take away any last reservations.

This is where Obama will have to be really, really good. My guess is he can win the Hispanic vote only by promising a better, fairer foreign policy towards Latin America - as he promisingly started to do with his Cuban travel proposals.

As regards immigration, I'm not sure that's the issue foremost on Hispanic voters' minds. It has been shown (in France) that legal immigrants can be hostile to lax immigration rules, out of fear that a wave of immigrants will spoil it for themselves. A Hispanic with US nationality may well vote against the person promising a new bridge over the Rio Grande.

Posted by Hans B | May 8, 2008 6:02 PM

Matthew, Latino small business owners tend not to lean so heavily to the GOP because a lot of them are hoping to get minority business grants and perceive Republican anti-affirmative action rhetoric as a threat.

Posted by Colorado Luis | May 8, 2008 6:02 PM

Could be a compelling BloggingHeads episode

I think you mean 'BloggingFromUnderTheBed', since Whack O'Mole really does have trouble leaving the house for fear of encountering OnNoesTehBrownMenace.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 8, 2008 7:06 PM

A good starting point for an intelligent and honest debate about what sort of immigration policy America should have would be to consider the immigration policies Canada and Australia have.

And an immigration bureaucracy fit for the 21st century? Sure.

So why are you supportive of Chris Kelly, a monomaniacal shut-in who maintains a handful of websites frequented by white supremacists, and who believes Latinos across the United States are plotting armed insurrection with foreign governments?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 8, 2008 7:13 PM

First, the reader should check my site before believing libelous claims.

Second, Andrew is a real piece of work. We can still be "open" to immigration, however it has to serve the national interest. And, we should also consider the national interests of other countries at the same time. The current immigration serves no one's national interest, only the interests of those who are corrupt, whether for money or for race-based power. Andrew's argument, such as it is, is just a strawman.

In light of that, the statement that "if the U.S. were to fling its arms open to the world and fulfill the words written on the statue of liberty once again" is just so much blather. And, if we did fling our arms open, we'd have a billion or two people trying to give us a hug, and that wouldn't feel too very good at all.

As for preventing illegal immigration, it's actually easier than Andrew pretends. It involves having an impact on the careers of its promoters, including MattY. And, should he ever accept my offer of a debate I'm more than willing to have an impact on his career as a pundit.

Posted by TLB | May 8, 2008 9:41 PM

Hey GOP, if you want minority voters, stop being so fucking racist. The idea that minorities, especially blacks and Latinos, just vote for Democrats because they want handouts is racist. That means no people like Trent Lott getting high positions, no fucking up like during Katrina, no torturing minorities, no dismissing police brutality as blaming the victim and no stupid shit like trying to declare English the official language of the US. Fred, you've come out in favor of not calling in a qualified applicant for an interview if their name is too black because then they might be a "ghetto thug," which is pre-judging a person based on race, which is exactly what racism is. Fred, have you even ever been on a date with someone who wasn't white?

While it might be bad for the Democrats if the GOP actually committed itself to reaching out to minority voters and purging racists from the leadership, it would be better for our nation overall for minorities to be more actively courted by both parties and have a real choice.

Posted by Reality Man | May 8, 2008 11:47 PM

Fred:

Well, my strong impression was that you grew up in the Northeast, probably the NYC area, and that you currently live there as well. If so, then the influx of non-Caribbean Latinos (e.g. Mexicans, Central Americans) is an extremely recent development, and I can't imagine you went to school with too many of them. If I'm totally mistaken and you actually grew up in Los Angeles and currently live in Dallas, then I'd gladly stand corrected.

Regarding IRS filings, every study I've every seen shows that illegal Latinos vastly overpay and under-collect because of their use of false SS numbers, and I've never seen any claim that significant numbers attempt to receive EITC payments; if you have a source that claims otherwise, please share.

While it's certainly true that Latinos do tend to be much less likely to have health insurance, and hence use emergency room care when they break their leg or something, I'd be very surprised if the net public dollars involved were all that gigantic. Again, the only large social net-transfer figure to Latinos I've ever seen is due to the expense of local public schools, and that's more because of the extraordinary financial inefficiency of our public school system rather than anything else.

Posted by RKU | May 8, 2008 11:54 PM

Reality Man,

You apparently find this paragraph of mine racist:

The GOP's natural appeal is to entrepreneurial groups, and although there entrepreneurs among blacks and Latinos, there are disproportionately fewer of them than in other demographic groups, and there is disproportionately more dependence on government. If you're dependent on government transfer payments, it makes sense to vote Democratic, because the Democrats are more likely to increase those payments at the expensive of net tax payers.

Care to explain why, in a cogent fashion? I know it's easier to just lob the accusation "racist" and be done with it, but let's see you try to make a rational argument for a change.

Posted by Fred | May 9, 2008 12:04 AM

Received by dnc.cn from mail.theatlantic.com
Received by dnc.org from mail.dnc.cn
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail],[e-mail]
Subject: Major, major help needed

Dear Gov. Dr. Chairman Dean, M.D.:

Can I finally stop talking about immigration? Every time I post about it, people in comments point out how I'm lying, or being misleading, or omitting key facts, or engaging in LogicalFallcies, or failing to acknowledge the other side's arguments. And, it's having an impact on what people think of me.

I tried doing what you told me, but, well, it's not working. No one is buying it. Do you have any real arguments I can use? I mean, *real* arguments, not arguments that are going to make me look bad. Because, what we've got now isn't working.

Would it be possible for me not to talk about this at all? I don't get too many visitors who point out how I'm wrong on other subjects, can I concentrate on those?

Yours,

Matt

P.S. Please don't send me an economic argument, because everyone keeps pointing out that I only look at first-level fiscal impacts and avoid discussing the complete picture including all costs. "That duck won't hunt", as Brush Clearer likes to say.

Posted by TLB | May 9, 2008 12:35 AM

Fred, you have argued on multiple occasions that blacks just want handouts. The end of your paragraph is just saying the same thing in prettier language. You think that blacks are genetically mentally inferior. You have posted on that many times. You're a racist. Accept it.

Posted by Reality Man | May 9, 2008 2:23 AM

reality man,

Is there anyway for a conservative candidate to make a policy proposal and not be called racist. If you call for smaller government and less spending, you will be called racist. If you call for no forced school busing, no social engineering in the schools, and no separate and unequal standards in schools, you will be called a racist. If you call for less illegitimate births, you will called a racist. If you call for more personal responsbility and less depending on Uncle Sam, you will be called a racist.

On the other hand, a liberal can deny admission to a university because of an applicants race and never be called a racist.

Posted by superdestroyer | May 9, 2008 7:09 AM

uh...not all small business owners vote GOP. I know several small business owners - my family has 5 and I've worked for another three. They split pretty evenly.

I'm as surprised by this as you.

Posted by Dan | May 9, 2008 1:23 PM