EckerNet.Com

Yesterday Republican candidates took part in a Hispanic Language debate on some television channel I’ve never heard of. However, I did read through the transcript, which WSJ has provided here.

Now some have labeled the debate as a “panderfest“. Now no offense to some but I honestly don’t know how anyone that actually either watched it or read through it can honestly say that.

Or at least it was no more of a panderfest than any other debate has been so far this election cycle. Honestly I was expecting at least some of the candidates to fall back on their new “get tough” stances on illegal immigration. For the most part that didn’t happen. Both Giuliani and Romney still pretended like they were against amnesty and were champions of border enforcement. McCain repeated his “Yes, I got the message” act on immigration. Duncan….well, he’s trustworthy regardless of setting. Thompson didn’t appear to waver from past statements. Tancredo boycotted. Ron Paul blamed America for all the world’s problems. No difference with virtually any other debate…actually as Captain Ed points out, for that matter it was a rather dull debate.

Although what IS of note is that, just as I expected, the largely hispanic audience rewarded them for their stances by applauding tough views on illegal immigration and get strong tactics on border enforcement. I’ve long said that LEGAL immigrants have no problem with such policies, and in fact welcome it. And for the most part that appears to have been reinforced.

As usual I have problems with some of the questions asked, I won’t begrudge the debate their choice of them. After all, this was a debate with the stated purpose of selling the GOP to Hispanics. Should ANYONE be surprised if most of the questions were a variation of “what will you do for hispanics?”. Just like if there is a debate put on by a coalition of Christian organizations, I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the questions were about religious views family values and abortion.

Nor should one begrudge the idea of a Hispanic debate in general. Many have done so argueing that Hispanics are not a monolithic voting bloc. Very true and on that I’ll agree. But neither are blacks, Christians, Southerns, Soccer Moms, the poor or any other group that routinely gets targeted by both parties every year. It’s okay to target them, but for some reason targeting hispanics is a problem???

Now do NOT read too much into that last paragraph and conclude that I think there is something inherently racist about opposition to the idea of a Hispanic debate. There’s not. I just think that many people’s knee is perhaps a bit too much on a hair-trigger from dealing with immigration issues for the past few years. That’s not directed at any one person, as I’ll admit I’m guilty of it myself at times. And to do otherwise is to reinforce misguided beliefs that because the GOP has talked tough on illegal immigration it automatically means they hate Hispanics.

What I DO have a problem with is that the debate was in Spanish. Especially when one considers that almost uniformly the GOP candidates talked up the virtues of all immigrants learning English and how it’s the key to success in America. Having the debate in Spanish is just as silly as having it in ebonics or “hill-billy”. Hillary tried that last one and look where it got her?? Almost universal scorn.

Having the debate in Spanish IS pandering I’ll admit. For an english-speaking country, functionally if not legally, to pander to those that only speak spanish is to unofficially endorse the same sort of mentality that causes immigrants to retreat into ethnic burrows. And while there is nothing wrong with being proud of your roots, hiding in ethnic burrow and never integrated is a recipe for perpetual poverty and civic unrest. France is learning that lesson very well right now.

So by all means GOP candidates, feel free to address the interest/concerns/questions of each and every “voting bloc” in America. Conservative principles are ideas I truly believe that most people at their heart embrace. So groups express them differently than others or place higher interest in some than others. Individuality. Freedom. Government out of your hair. The chance at success. These are all things that can be expressed and embraced by ANY group. To automatically discount one is silly, stupid and political suicide.

NOTE : I would be rather remiss if I didn’t offer up a link to a post of Hawkins, that includes some of the best responses of the night’s debate. There are a few more I’d add in there, but by and large he got some of the best ones.