Jul 08 2007

Is The GOP Losing Texas?

Published by at 9:42 am under All General Discussions

Apparently the immigration debacle is hurting the GOP in their strongest areas – Texas included.

There are, however, signs of trouble for the GOP. While Gov. Rick Perry won re-election in November, he achieved only a plurality in a four-way race that featured a Democrat and an independent as well as a former Republican turned independent (State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn). And Republicans lost two heartbreaking races in the past year. Rep. Henry Bonilla, a seven-term incumbent and the only Mexican-American Republican in Congress, lost to Democrat Ciro Rodriguez, who ran a haphazard campaign. George Antuna, a rising star who had worked for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Mr. Perry (when he was lieutenant governor under Mr. Bush), lost a race for an open state legislative seat.

In Dallas, moreover, Republicans imploded. Democrats ended decades of GOP dominance last fall by winning the county judge’s seat, the district attorney’s office and 41 out of 42 contested judicial races–election results the Dallas Morning News dubbed a “Democratic deluge.”

“We knew that if we could win 40% of the Hispanic vote,” as Mr. Bush did in 2004, “we’d control Texas until 2030.” But in 2006, the number of Texas Hispanics who voted Republican fell to between 30% and 35% (depending on the poll).

This shift alone spells trouble for Republicans. Many conservatives may not want to hear it, but Mr. Masset puts the blame on talk radio and cable TV reaction to immigration reform. He says an uncompromising attitude toward comprehensive reform and appeals to fear sometimes carry a whiff of racism that alienates Hispanics. “Houston is no more than six years behind Dallas,” he warns.

And if the demographic shift continues to gain momentum, there’s a real possibility that Democrats could achieve a majority in the Texas House by 2010.

The GOP implosion is for real folks. And the more the far right hear’s their absolutism is bad they simply say they want more absolutism. The far right is tired of having to put up with the rest of the nation which doesn’t follow them lock step. And the feeling is becoming mutual. The GOP had all this promise, now all they want is purity. It is sad. But if that is their fate then that is their fate.

And why not? A similar flip happened in California in the 1990s. What was once Reagan Country became a Democratic stronghold. GOP Gov. Pete Wilson’s get-tough approach to immigration was an undeniable factor.

Yep, Reagan country is now The Governator’s country. Guiliani is the front runner in the GOP – not Newt or Tancredo or other “pure” conservatives. Sort of telling isn’t it?

30 responses so far

30 Responses to “Is The GOP Losing Texas?”

  1. MerlinOS2 says:

    The people already have a house in government … the House. It wouldn’t hurt for the states to have a say too.

    Left by crosspatch on July 8th, 2007

    It’s not just immigration it’s also about who represents the states interest in our system any more.

    The result is that big pocket donors have managed to get legislation passed mostly with Dem help that has over the years pushed unfunded mandates one after the other down the hill for the states to have to cope with and then have to face the voters with the choice of having to increase local taxes to support the unfunded mandates or reduce other services to pay the bill.

  2. MerlinOS2 says:

    I for one want reliable conservatives, and no I don’t mean hard right reactionaries.

    If the party is to become middle ground sway with the polls types then all that will lead to is way to much horse trading on each bill to buy votes and the overhead cost will increased tax load on everyone just to fund all those buy your vote efforts.

    Principles mean something and they are not to be molded on a day to day basis.

  3. MerlinOS2 says:

    Some need to look at a longer timescale of how history works out.

    In each case where Republicans deserted their principles they got their hat handed to them big time.

    To be conservative means something and it DOES NOT mean hard right.

    I find it amazing that some here point to the right of the party being so badly wrong and demanding purity, but they don’t even notice that in fact they themselves by extension are demanding that the party desert the base conservative principles and go their way to usher in a new Democrat lite that doesn’t abide by those principles.

    Each case where the Republicans took their own down two things are common. First when they came back politicians of real conservative values replaced faux conservatives and the voter base as a whole was much more conservative oriented and LARGER than the apathy depleted prior voter base.

    Yet people seem to react now like this is an entirely new thing they are seeing in awesome wonder like a child with a new toy.

  4. MerlinOS2 says:

    People should remember the 17th whenever someone floats the idea of doing away with the electoral college and electing presidents directly.

    Left by WWS on July 8th, 2007

    Most people only know the 17th exists ( and even that is questionable) but then hit them with the big one and ask them the whole political environment and the world event perspective that put it in place originally and they come up clueless.

    I suggest some need to get out their history books or at least do some web searching to read up on it and the pros and cons that were offered in the debate at the time.

    Some really need to do their homework to inform themselves.

  5. crosspatch says:

    “But I don’t guess there is any chance that will change again.”

    I think there is a chance, particularly when the people get sick and tired of the Senate’s politically driven show hearings instead of spending time having hearings on things that actually matter to the country.

    The Senate hearing process has spiraled down into a place where it is basically used for little else than witch hunts against political opponents of the party in the majority. The Senate is no longer “the world’s greatest deliberative body” but is instead nothing more than political theater and judging by congressional approval numbers, the people are getting sick and tired of it.

    If they had as many hearings on the immigration issue as they have had fishing expeditions against the Bush administration’s justice department, we might all be better informed on the issues. Instead they waste valuable time and taxpayer money playing sophomoric political games.

  6. Terrye says:


    The Republicans in Ohio did not get beat because they abandoned their conservative principles, it was the corruption that did them in. On the state and federal level. Ney’s problems and Taft’s problems were not ideological, they were legal.

  7. Terrye says:


    yeah, but would they vote to make the change?

  8. WWS says:

    Terry, you got a point. To change the 17th amendment, 2/3 of the sitting Senators would have to vote in favor of taking their own fundraising and grandstanding power away – won’t happen in a thousand years. When the 17th amendment first passed, the Senators who voted in favor were voting in favor of taking power away from their states and giving it to themselves personally – not hard to see why it was a good deal for them. And the House – well, they all hoped to be Senators someday, so why not?

    why the states so willingly went along with it is another story, one about how easy it is for large numbers of people to get caught up in nice sounding but self-destructive mass movements. (see the current global warming hysteria, case in point)

  9. crosspatch says:

    If it becomes a major campaign issue it would pass. If it became important enough to the people that a Senator voting against it would lose his job anyway because the people would refuse to re-elect them. You would then get Senators running on a repeal platform and getting elected. It would take time and dedication by the people but it could be done and it would give us a stronger country and better government.

  10. peter the bellhop says:

    Lets not over read the Dallas County results. Many Rep’s have been heading out th the burbs leaving the city to the Democrats. Many of our courthouse group abused their positions. A turn had to happen.

    The other results from San Antonio had Ciro, past CHC Chair running against Henry. He ran a tired campaign and lost. Ciro had lost his seat four years ago and couldn’t win it back from a DINO, another Henry Cuellar. As for Perry, you take Carole away and he gets over 60% of the vote. This state is no where near flipping. We just need to keep to our guns with a conservative agenda and everything will be alright.

    Remember 2008 needs to be about SCOTUS and nothing else. Who gets to pick the next SC Justices, my guys or their guys. I’d prefer my guys, please, any of my guys.