This is probably damning with faint praise, but I think that barber's right on the money. I've had the same uneasy feeling for a couple years now. Latinos are already the dominant minority. Not as "loud" (prominent) as Black folk right now, but give it a little time.

Anyway, they would get more "power" if they voted as a block, but there is a diff between Latinos of Cuban and Mexican heritage.

If Black folk were to scatter their voting power, it might amount to frittering away what little influence we have. Ain't many Republicans tryin to sweet-talk Black folk into the party. OTOH, courting the Latino vote is for Republicans a possible end-around the lock Democrats have on the Black vote.

I think this post is right on the money. It is happening, and its going to keep happening. I generally consider myself a Republican but this is definately one of those issues that really makes me wonder what G.W. is thinking. First, he will pass legislation to let them come into the country. And then, because of No-child-left-behind, their kids are expected to perform to the same standards as everyone else. I teach English as a second language at a high school. I see this everyday. It leads to a drop in the quality of education because teachers are constantly trying to play catch up with immigrant students.

Having its effects on politics here in Phila. Where Congressman Chaka Fattah, 48, is making noises about possibly replacing John Street as Mayor in 2007. Much trumpeting about his legendary organizational and fundraising skills during the election season. Not to mention his wife, lead female anchor for our NBC-owned station. Not much about possible frustration about waiting waiting waiting for a committee chair that might not happen. Because he's a Democrat. Thus the career dilemma.

"Hispanic" is a rather broad brush to paint an entire group with. I'm not sure they are as monolithic as some people like to think they are ... Really, are Carribean Hispanics the same as those from Mexico ... the same as those from South America ...? Many Mexicans who've been here for generations don't take too kindly to being lumped in with those who are fresh over the border (legally or not). Whoever courts that vote in the future needs to do their homework on the diversity within the hispanic communities ...

The Barber is right and wrong. Yes Bush is courting the Latino vote. Of course the fact that they are single (not wedded to one party or the other) helps a great deal.

But Bush also understands the economic impact that "border crossers" and their families have. In states like Texas and Florida, Arizona and New Mexico, Latinos have a huge fiscal impact on the economy. Just think of how much work would never get done if they were not here. Let's put it this way, if there were not jobs in America for them to do then they would stop crossing.

The hispanic vote is fractured, and - for now - they don't vote in the percentages and skewed fashion of black voters. When I lived in L.A. we assumed the mayoral race (all Democrats, thank God, though I would have voted for Riordan, a moderate Republican) was the hispanic candidates to lose. A coalition of black and white voters went for the white, more moderate candidate while hispanics were not really a factor in the race because they didn't show up at the polls. Cuban voters are pro-GOP, but the 2nd and 3rd waves are getting close to 50-50. Other hispanic constituencies, while they may line up with the GOP on social issues like abortion, like black Americans I expect them to trend slightly Dem in the long run too.

The idea may be right. But if it is, then what does it say when the "party of opportunity" is willing to cast aside "its history" to win? And is willing to ignore the law to win?

Maybe it's about showing that he is S.C. material given that the Bush admin. is going to go after Row v. Wade.

A good theory. If you consider some the planks on the platform of the GOP. School reform that will ultimatly replace the public school system for a private one, and by default destroying NEA. Tort reform that limits awards, and by default legal fees. These are two of the largest contribtors, to the Democrats. An agenda that if successful will reduce contributions to the DNC.

It is very monopolistic when you think about. Don't just use your advantage to compete but limit your enemies ability to compete. Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer would be proud.

Ambra, I think you are right. As untidy as the truth may be as long as blacks obediently give their vote without any strings attached there will be no bipartisan efforts to court the vote. Blacks for too long have been too intrenched in the democratic party and they are taken for granted.

Hopefully intelligent open minded discussion from people like you will awaken a new desire for blacks to reevaluate their place in American politics and move from the far left to a moderate "don't take us for granted" position.

I am reminded of a book by Germaine Greer The Female Eunuch. In her last chapter she described the conditions under which women might arrive when they finally feel that they have achieved equality. It goes like this, "you stop thinking about it." Well, I think I reached that day about 15 years ago. It does not even occur to me that I might be discriminated against in the workplace and in most places I go because of my sex. Hopefully the issue of discrimination by virtue of color will end up where we cease to think about it and see each other who we are, not what color we are.

It will be far more difficult for President Bush to allow more immigrants into the US from Mexico without a big fight from our own party. Ultimately the immigration laws must change to reflect the reality on the ground here. We cannot continue to pretend that migrant workers are not here. There has to be a way to let them work here and return home in a way that also protects our citizens. I do not believe that there is a perfect solution but I know we can do better.

Both Barber's are right. ;)

But they don't want to return home. They have kids here, which makes them citizens, and their lives are a whole lot better here: free schools, affordable or free health care, food, electricity, running water. Who wants to go back to a third world country where an indoor toilet is a luxury? (I've been to third world countries, and the poor here have it better than anywhere else.)

Bush is delusional if he thinks that appointing Hispanics to high-profile positions will get the GOP the majority of the Hispanic vote. After Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, and Colin Powell, what % of the black vote did Bush get? About 10%? There are 2 reasons for Bush's illegal-immigrant amnesty plan:

1.(the MAIN reason): Businesses want cheap labor, paid often under the table in cash to avoid:

a. paying minimum wage
b. paying the employer share of payroll taxes (e.g.,mediare, social security)
c. enforcement of labor laws (e.g., OSHA, EPA, EEOC regs)

...and rich Republicans who do the same things (in hiring nannies, maids, gardeners, etc)....

because these are the people (rich people and businesses) who give Bush and the GOP their campaign $$$, and in politics, money is EVERYTHING.

2. His advisors, namely the Machavellian Karl Rove, have convinced him that he got 44% of the Hispanic vote (in reality the exit polls were flawed, the Hispanic vote was more like 38%; there is no GOP Hispanic trend, the GOP Hispanic vote % just rises or drops in lock step with the overall vote, about 20% lower than the white vote in every election. No change in 2004.

Democrats should be thrilled with the amnesty plan. When the majority of the voters in all the Southwest states (including GOP-dominated Texas, Arizona, and Colorado) Hispanic, the Democrats will have a lock on the White House. With Bush's amnesty plans, this should happen in a few decades, if not sooner.

That Mr. Barber guy of yours is a canny fellow.

Also recall that the first 2004 Democratic Presidential Debate was held somewhere in the southwest (New Mexico or Arizona) under the auspices of a Hispanic organization. Seems both parties are starting to shift their focus over to the new dominant minority.

Carson- interesting thesis you've got there- it might do for you to note that the DNC raised more cash than the GOP in the last presidential election, and folks like billionaire George Soros spent massive amounts of dough via moveon.yawn, etc. backing Lurch and demonizing Bush.

Also, if I'm not mistaken one of the primary contributors to the DNC is the trial lawyers' association- not your standard downtrodden folks, yeah?

Additionally, I'd not be willing to wager that it is only Republican rich folks hiring illegals as maids and nannies- seem to remember a couple Clinton appointees getting hung up on this very thing.

Finally- why is it that Republicans are either dumb as dirt or evil (Machiavellian) geniuses? I'm thinking you need another setting on your stereotyping machine, dude.

Idler-

Of course some rich people give money to the Democrats for ideological reasons (Soros) or for economic self-interests (lawyers). I'm not suggesting that ALL rich people give $$$ only to the GOP, or that only Republicans hire illegal nannies. I'm sure that businesses also give $$$ to Democrats to ensure continued illegal immigration. The issue was Bush, and why he would favor policies (amnesty, etc) that are more unpopular with HIS party (the GOP) than with Democrats.

Who said Republicans are ALWAYS evil geniuses or dumb as dirt? I said in THIS case they are. Alternative #3 is that most Republican voters WANT amnesty for illegals and want more illegal immigration. Obviously, this is NOT a logical argument, in this case "evil genius" or "dumb as dirt" - your words - seem very applicable.

Carson:

Interesting- in your first post, your assertion was that Businesses, represented by rich Republicans -no mention of rich Democrats- were into easy immigration laws to ensure cheap labor for commercial and domestic labor and to "buy" votes. You also maintain that the GOP derives the majority of its capital from rich people and businesses- again no mention of the wealthy contributors/businesses backing the DNC- in addition to the trial lawyers and Soros, check Enron's contributions to the DNC during the Clinton years-that'll make your eyes pop.

Notice you also failed to mention Clinton's act of granting virtually complete amnesty/instant citizenship to Haitians, Cubans, Mexicans etc. before his second election- gosh, the cynical among us might say he was looking to not only import cheap labor to hype the economy but to ensure faithful voters.... seems to be some inconsistency in your thesis, Carson.

Think you're guilty of stereotyping here- "the GOP is the party of the wealthy, the DNC is for the little guy." Do note that the Democratic candidate in the recent presidential election was the wealthiest candidate in history, and a check of the senate will show that the wealthiest Senators are democrats. Also, much was made recently in the aftermath of the election that the blue states had all the talent, all the ability, and most importantly all the MONEY.... the red states, according to the whiny secessionist advocates, were a bunch of dirt assed poor welfare havens- how again is it that the GOP is the party of the plutocrat?

Noticed that when your inconsistencies were pointed out, suddenly you maintained that "of course some rich people give money to the Democrats"- why the flip flop, Carson? Some sort of unspoken hommage to the recently defeated Democratic Presidential candidate?

In "this case" Republicans are either evil geniuses or dumb as dirt? Your argument here is a bit crude. Are you saying that your third alternative is something roundly rejected by Republicans, yet embraced by the DNC? You're a bit fuzzy here. How about alternative #4- in today's world, the issue of immigration in this country is incredibly complex- the historical concepts of "give us your poor, your tired, your hungry" clashing with the realities of islamo-psychopaths slipping into our country to tear down our society, with a healthy dose of social programs being burdened to the breaking point due to immigration sprinkled on top?

Carson, you seem to be a fairly smart fellow, and you have the beginnings of a thesis here. However, your intellect keeps getting mugged by ideological bias- you are applying a double standard here between the two parties, and you are apparently starting out with the false premise that the DNC is somehow morally superior to the GOP, as evidenced by the slanted nature of your arguments. Keep in mind that both parties are in the self perpetuation business, or to put it more baldly- they are obsessed with grabbing power. Our blog hostess is keenly aware of this, and you (as well as I, coming from the other side) would do well to realize it too.

Idler -

I do not beleive that my first post said that Democrats don't support illegal immigration or have rich donors. I'm sorry that you inferred that from the fact that I did not mention Democrats. I'm an independent, not a Democrat. I usually vote Republican.I certainly am not any sort of Democrat aplogist. I was commenting on the Republicans, not Democrats since the original story is about Bush and Alberto Gonzalez - Republicans.

Dang it! For 40 years "oppresssed" people have been working to rectify "oppression" by The Man.
Now the President actually has the gall to go and appoint qualified people to nationally prominent offices regardless of(in spite of?) the color of their skin. Now what are those oppressed people going to do?