I suggest you look up polling data on African-American and Hispanic political leanings. Foreign affairs in at the bottom but social welfare spending (government jobs, government set asides, government pork), is at the top. AFrican-American politicians support higher levels of government for everything but crime control and defense. Elected blacks and Hispancs are extremely level. Have you never watched a CBC event on C-SPAN? Have you never reviewed any of the black politican web sites. Do you really think that a group that supports reparations will ever be conservative.

Also, if you look at what is said about individuals like Michael Steele on the black political sites, then yes, a conservative black is always seen as a race traitor and is openly called an uncle tom and a house slave.

So, how do you think that a small government party can ever appeal to non-whites in the U.S? And can you make your point without the insults?

1.) Foreign policy is fundamentally uninteresting to non-whites.
2.) Non-whites vote for Democrats because they get money from them.
3.) Blacks and browns cannot be Republicans without also being race traitors.

You’re disgusting dude. None of that shit is true, and reflects such a puerile mindset that I now question whether or not you’re actually of voting age. I can’t even comprehend someone living to the age of 18 with an iota of political and social consciousness and not only holding such beliefs, but being bewildered when someone finds them offensive.

To argue that the Republicans are going to make a comeback is the same as making the argument that the Republicans will regain power in Maryland, Massachusetts, NYC, Chicago, or even California.

Many things are different now versus the past. The Democrats and Republicans have divided into a liberal party and a conservative party. The most conservative Democrat in the House of Representatives is more liberal than th emore liberal Republican.

Second, the U.S. due to the Civil Rights Act and minority-majority districting ensure that most black politicians will be very liberal. The same also applies to Hispanics.

Do you really think that a conservative party survive in an U.S. that is majority non-whites? Why would any black or Hispanic politicians aspire to be a conservative when they have no chance to be elected and are seen as a race traitor?

David Axelrod has the perfect strategy for the future of the Democrats: tax the top 5% and give the money to the core groups of the Democratic Party. What can the Republicans do against that?

The GOP is one day going to control the government again. Sorry if that bothers you. However, it will surely not be the same GOP that ran the country for the last eights years, and it may have only superficial similarities with Reagan’s GOP. Now is an important time, because the state of the party is in flux, and if there were ever a time to try and change the GOP, that time is now. You can either try to do this, or you can hang out and insist that over a hundred years of political precedence is going to give way because of demographics; as if the demographics of the US were ever static or that political parties never adapted to them.

Maybe you can back up the snark by citing all of the writing of the Congressional Black Caucus on foreign affairs. Since South African in the 1980′s and maybe Rwanda and Darfur, the CBC could not care less about foreign affairs.

Maybe you could point to the position papers and policy initiatives on foreign affairs that have come out of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Other than open borders and unlimited immigration, the CHC does not seem to care.

What both the CBC and CHC care about is affirmative action, increased government spending, and expanding entitlements.

Tomtom — As much as I respect Mr. Larison and his correspondents, I must take issue with referring to sanity in foreign policy as a “conservative” virtue. Conservatives have forfeited the right to that claim.

GWB squandered that legacy in six years.

Most Republicans are still in denial about their loss. They think people still trust them, that the Iraq/Afghanistan damage to their prestige is shallow, that Democrats really are weaklings who will blow their hand and the public will return to daddy.

This fantasy is understandable. The Vietnam trauma was deep, and the rejection of anti-war types was deep and abiding. It is also ahistorical. The Democratic party does not have pacifist roots or a tendency toward appeasement. Democratic foreign policy is sane and conservative and will stay that way. Nothing is pushing Democrats toward foreign policy weakness.

Nixon is the lat president before Obama who inherited a foreign policy disaster, and his political play was to continue to fight an upopoular war until public exhaustion was complete and no political price attached to withdrawl.

Obama is a canny, ruthless, and risk-averse politician. His path so far is Nixonian, which means that he will not give the Republicans a credible opening. His foreign policy will be similar to the non-insane last two years of GWB. The public at large will grow tired of fighting losing wars, and they will grow sick of the exhortations of Republicans. Finally the exhaustion will be so total that Obama can withdraw without serious political cost. Republicans will peddle the stab-in-the-back on Iraq/Afghanistan but only true believers will buy it.

The Republicans have nearly lost their advantage on foreign policy, and Obama is smart enough and cynical enough to stand back and let failing policies reveal themselves in full.

Republican foreign policy strutting and preening will more and more induce nostalgia and amusment.

You’re seriously a caricature. GB2LF.

Do you really think that such policy proposals will ever attract 50% of the voters in a nation where less than half the voters will be white versus the Democrats promising to tax whites at a very high rate and spending the tax dollars on non-whites?

Also, does ‘Daniel really believe that the Congressional Black Caucus or the Congressional Hispanic Caucus care at all about missile shields, Pakistan, middle east or Russia. To non-whites in the U.S., international policy and actions just distract the government from spending money on blacks and Hispanics.

#5 is more specifically problematic. I’m not sure that affirmative action is the bugaboo that it once was among white voters, especially now that affirmative-action-as-a-quota system has been fairly well discredited. Do that, especially when combined with the immigration statement, and you’re getting back another all-white party, and probably not pulling people like myself away from the “left” fringes.

Essentially, it’ll just tie into the teaparty section of the Republican party with a bit of isolationism. I can’t see that winning a lot.

1. Scaling back international entanglements and policies to “keep the world safe for ‘democracy.’”
2. Controlling illegal immigration, and restricting the legal kind.
3. Ending corporate welfare and moving toward a balanced budget.
4. Halting the growth of federal control, perhaps cutting it back a bit.
5. Ending affirmative action.

Unfortunately, we aren’t likely to get it. Pitchforks, anyone?

Hmmm! Maybe these stats may help you see Big Picture.

“The 2009 data are based on 16 separate Gallup surveys conducted from January through September, encompassing more than 5,000 national adults per quarter. Conservatives have been the dominant ideological group each quarter, with between 39% and 41% of Americans identifying themselves as either ‘very conservative’ or ‘conservative.’ Between 35% and 37% of Americans call themselves ‘moderate,’ while the percentage calling themselves ‘very liberal’ or ‘liberal’ has consistently registered between 20% and 21% — making liberals the smallest of the three groups.”

The only problem with the Republican Party is that in the last 2 election cycles was it wasn’t seen as “conservative enough!” If they continue behave as they are in the NY 23rd Congressional District race, they will be stuck with the same image again in 2010.

You already have that in the Democrat Party, why change? Simply bring back the Nobel Laureate Jimmy Carter, and “Happy Days are Here Again!”

Let me see if I got this right. Reagan was wrong for pushing missile defense and challenging Soviet Russia under the peace-maker Gorby, and Bush was wrong for offering Europe, especially our real allies, the Czechs and Poles, missile protection. However, Obama, on the other hand, was correct in selling out the Czechs and Poles in a Chamberlain-like aire in order to induce Putin’s cooperation in deflanging the Iranian Mullah’s nuke program, which him promptly told us to go pound sand. And this you call sound foreign policy.

Well, I suggest that you might re-read the Constitution, as I believe you will find that the 1st responsibility of the Federal Government is National Security – all other responsibilities are secondary. Interestingly, the end of the primary protaganist of the US, the USSR, was brought about not by appeasement, but by confrontation and the threat of a missile shield that would leave our enemies vunerable to our rath while preserving our National Security. What is so “unAmerican” about putting US National Interests first but neutering our potential enemies, including the newly belligerent Russia.