The Republican National Committee (RNC) will be making a decision on Friday, January 19 on whether to totally divide the Republican party and destroy any hopes of winning in 2008 when they vote whether to install Bush choice Senator Mel Martinez
as the chairman.
It seems President Bush chose Florida Senator Mel Martinez in order to bring in the fabled "Hispanic vote", but this is simply a ridiculous notion. Martinez is a Cuban immigrant success story. The fact is that Cuban-Americans generally vote Republican anyway and putting all "Hispanics" in the same bucket is a clearly idiotic approach. It's almost as idiotic as lumping all Koreans, Japanese and Chinese in the "Asian bucket". Martinez is unlikely to sway any Hispanic votes towards the Republican party.
Martinez is pro-amnesty for illegal aliens and against English as the official language. Hispanics in general are split on the immigration issue despite the continued belief by the Republican party that simply granting amnesty will gain them some sort of sympathy from Hispanics in general. This can be witnessed in Arizona Proposition 200 denying services to illegal aliens, which passed with 47% of the Hispanic vote and shows that Hispanics cannot be filed away as all supporting illegal immigration.
Putting Martinez in charge of the RNC is going to simply say to the majority of the Republican party, which is against amnesty, that the Republican party truly doesn't care about your views on this issue and that if you don't like it too bad. This will split the Republican party and make it even more fractured than it already is.
What possible good could come of this? Well at least one person sees a silver lining. Lonewacko points out that it could force the formation of a third viable pro American party. I personally don't see this happening. What I see happening is that it splits the Republican party into two ineffective sub parties thus allowing the Democrats to rule the country for years to come.
I personally have become less partisan over the years. I was a staunch Republican ever since a child. Over the years however as the religious right started taking control of the party and over the past 6 years of massive spending and a total disregard for our country's sovereignty, I really have no party affiliation that I feel connected to. Sticking Mel Martinez in charge of things will simply drive me - and a bunch of people like myself - further away from the party and its perceived goals of destroying this country. Texas RNC member Denise McNamara had this to say "Choosing an RNC chairman who supports amnesty [for illegal aliens] is tantamount to telling the conservative majority of Americans that they do not matter." An estimated 80% of the electorate opposes amnesty for illegal aliens.
You can find out more information on those out there trying to stop the Mel Martinez succession over at Stop Martinez where they say "Mel Martinez is Spanish for Harriet Miers."
I still am a registered republican, but some times I want to grab the RNC leadership by the short hairs and kick them right in the ass.
Mel Martinez? Yea, that'll get us some of them Mexican votes. Who cares if it drives the conservative base into hiding.
People are inspired by real leadership, not skin color or sir names. Elect the best people to the right posts and the voters will follow. I would vote for an Inuit Eskimo for RNC chair, or President if he or she had the right qualities. I don't care if he or she didn't even carry the -1% of Inuit demographic.
Let’s throw a wider net, get out of the box and find that one person who believes America is still the best hope for our planet. We don’t need a career politician, we need a born leader.
Digger, another great post, although I don’t see the religious right taking control of the party by any means. For every visit to Bob Jones U by a Presidential candidate, they also visit every VFW hall, corn grower co-op, manufacturing plant and Waffle House they can find. Maybe I don’t see it as a problem because of my faith, kind of like the media bias the media never sees because they agree with it.
I don’t take my politics inside my church, period. That is the Lord’s house. I try to keep the Lord out my politics, but my faith and my beliefs are intertwined, so I may not be very successful.
Posted by: Yolo Cowboy on January 19, 2007 01:38 AM
although I don’t see the religious right taking control of the party by any means
Terry Schiavo, embryonic stem cell research, abortion, all of them come down to the religious sanctity of life argument.
Strip everything away for a moment Yolo Cowboy. What is government for? To protect our safety and security from foreign invaders and ensure that people aren't mugged on the street. Of course they also provide a common currency and other regulatory bodies to supposedly ensure that businesses are playing on a level playing field. Should they really be sticking their nose into moral issues such as the Terry Schiavo case? That - and issues like it - are the clear work of the religious right and it affects everyone regardless of their beliefs and freedom of religion.
I'm not saying religion is wrong, hell I went to a private Christian school for part of my youth, have read the Bible from cover to cover and have a major interest in historical biblical archaeology and study, but there are limits that they have crossed that our government - and in particular the right - should not.
Being a Christian and being an American are two separate things and they shouldn't be mixed as much as the right is making them.
And no I'm not one of those over the top people who think crosses should be torn down, "In God We Trust" should be removed from our money, "God Bless America" should be removed from the public lexicon or prayer banned from our schools. But they've gone so far over the edge, even for me, regarding what this government is supposed to be doing.
Posted by: Digger on January 19, 2007 07:35 AM