The following are comments by Linda Chavez, conservative activist, government official, and former Senatorial candidate:   "Some people just don't like Mexicans - or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans."

This morning on TH, Dean Barnet posted an apology to Matt Lewis for saying Matt was a "McCain supporter," which he's not.  I wrote the following comment to Dean, which I did with something of a heavy heart.  I believe the endless Romney cheerleading is unseemly to say the least and it's destroying Hewitt's credibility as any sort of honest broker of information.   Here are my comments:

"Dean, as you know, I think you do exceptional work. But there's a widespread view that the major figures at TH have gone into the tank for Romney, a profoundly flawed candidate. I think Hugh's adoration -- the right word -- of Romney's candidacy has severely damaged his credibility. I have endorsed Rudy Giuliani, but I've been critical of his stands on a number of issues, which is a proper journalistic response. The constant focusing on what "Team Romney" (yikes!) is saying about the monumental "Ames Straw Vote" is nothing short of manipulation. It's irresponsible. Straw votes are right up there with what Ann Romney wore to the latest soiree. I have never heard a coherent, credible (key words) argument for why you or Hugh support Romney. I've never heard any reservations you may have about his candidacy, and that makes me wonder exactly what's going on. Other than that, well . . ."

I've written on Romney several times, although I'm mainly avoiding him lately.  To me, the man reeks of hubris, dishonesty, and cynicism.  When he indicated to South Carolina evangelicals that he was a born-again Christian -- a concept that has no relevance in Mormonism -- that soured (to say the least) my enthusiasm for one "Mitt" Romney.  On the debate the other night, it was embarrassing to see this English-as-the-official language adherent squirm around trying to explain his heavy advertising in Spanish.  "Have you no shame?"  Guess not. 

In Massachusetts, he ran as a social liberal.  Now he's running as a "Townhall" social conservative.  I believe people who call themselves conservatives have a moral and intellectual obligation to oppose him.

_________

On the right, in the comments sections, I have a good comment from SteveL and two responses.  We agree that we need to get more people voting Republican, basically bringing back some of the people we've lost and adding some first-timers.  However, the way to do that is NOT to say, "This is our philosophy.  Take it or leave it."  If we do it, they will "leave it" with enthusiasm.  We have to improve our listening skills -- in English and, when necessary, in Spanish.


Today's column follows:

I'd like to write mainly about immigration over the next week or so, but I’d first like to see what happens on the cloture vote that apparently will take place this week.  I'll also be writing on Fred Thompson, who is one of the least impressive candidates I've ever seen. 

Over the past two-plus months that I’ve been on TH, I’ve received hundreds of comments on this blog, many of them excellent and some of them (like comments from Bruce Sherman, Sanity 102, Sheila, Wil Keepers, and others) that are truly distinguished.  On the other hand, I’ve gotten comments – mainly on immigration, but also on Second Amendment issues – that have been appalling.  Some were racist and nativist.  Others lacked even a minimum of thoughtfulness, as people recited their single-issue slogans as if they were making some sort of definitive statement, which they were not. 

I’ve been hearing a lot lately about the supposed “conservative base.”  More and more, I think of that “base” as a noisy, obnoxious rabble.  If they have any ideas, they’re certainly having trouble expressing them in anything like coherent terms.  Fearing or hating Mexicans is not an immigration policy. 

Some important Republican politicians have taken a hard look at the motley “base” and have basically thrown up their hands.  The most notable case of this is Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in California, an extremely popular leader in his state, but not exactly a “conservative” Republican. 

A somewhat similar person is Rudy Giuliani, elected and re-elected in heavily Democratic New York City.  We’ve been hearing for years that Giuliani will turn off the Republican “base” and thus cannot win the nomination.  At the same time, Giuliani has been the leader among Republican candidates in national polls, so the reports of his political demise seem to have been exaggerated.

The extremist members of the base, the single-issue politics people, look at Rudy with contempt, and he returns the favor.   He seems to regard the hard-core base, people who are very visible on TH, as making up about 5% of the electorate. 

It consists almost exclusively of white males, many of them concentrated in the South or the small Western states.  This group includes basically none of the 100 million minorities in America.  It has very few, if any women professionals (doctors, lawyers, teachers, MBAs, or the like).   Of the 40 million legal U.S. residents of Hispanic descent, the “base” includes only a handful.  As a rough guess, I’d say very few Asian-Americans regard themselves as members of the “base.”

As I suggested, someone like Giuliani looks at this “base” – a small, noisy, obnoxious group of angry white males – and regards it as a menace to what he regards as the Republican Party.  He sees it as a small group that’s getting smaller all the time.  With its stridency and hostility-driven politics, the “base” turns off independents and conservative Democrats.  It’s a major reason why the number of people who calls themselves Republicans has been in free fall.

One person who wrote to me said that, since he didn’t like Hillary, he was prepared “to hold [my] noise and vote for Rudy.”  I said to him, “Don’t bother.  I doubt he wants your vote.”   I suggested perhaps a write-in vote for Tancredo or Paul. 

My point was that people like Rudy and Arnold (and Rep. Bobby Inglis of South Carolina, as well as Senators Jon Kyl, John McCain, Saxby Chambliss, and Jonny Isaacson) are trying to reconstitute the Republican Party.  The want a bigger base with more recognizable Americans of all varieties in it.  They don't want a "base" that drives away smart, tolerant people, male and female, and attracts stupid, intolerant ones.   "Stupid doesn't have a great future."

Frankly, they don’t want the GOP to become “The White Males” Party.  They realize that such a Party would be heading quickly down the road to extinction.  That’s where they see the “base” taking the GOP, and they are appalled.   They look at the Tom Tancredos and Ron Pauls, and they see the specter of a Party with no prospects.  They see the development of a permanent minority, a Party that "just says 'No!'" to everything.

They know that Black Americans, for example, regard the Republican Party as racist and irrelevant.  They don't want the rest of the country, including the large and growing Hispanic minority, thinking along the same lines. 
 

In essence, they see the “base,” with its overheated rhetoric, driving people away – rather than bringing them in.  So, they’re taking an approach that mystifies the pundits and the MSW, which is easily mystified.

Giuliani (and much the same is true of McCain) are pursuing a national strategy.  They're competing for votes in states – New York, California, New Jersey, and others – that “base” Republicans long ago wrote off. 

Instead, Rudy and others like him are committed to reconstituting Republicanism as something with a broad appeal across America.

They’ll hold their own noses -- and take votes from anyone, including the “base.”  However, don’t expect them to express their gratitude to people that they don't like or respect.  

More on this subject of “Republican Reconstitution” will come in the weeks and months ahead . . .