How dare ex-Bushies imply that someone like Phyllis Schlafly has "lost the ambition to convince" people of the virtues of conservatism, when the Bush Administration drove so many people away from conservatism? When did the Bush Administration show "the ambition to convince" Americans about the benefits of conservatism?Peter Wehner replies:
That’s a rather silly charge to make, since my criticisms of Ms. Schlafly were not personal; they had to do with differences over a substantive policy matter. Ingraham believes it’s terribly unfair that I said Schlafly has lost the “ambition to convince” when it comes to the GOP appealing to Hispanics. But how else can one interpret these comments by Schlafly: “The Hispanics who come in like this are going to vote Democrat. And there is not the slightest bit of evidence that they are going to vote Republican. The people the Republicans should reach out to are the white votes – the white voters who didn’t vote in the last election.”Wehner is wrong, as I explained below. Phyllis Schlafly is happy to convince anyone of conservatism, but Hispanics vote overwhelmingly Democrat, and a few million more Hispanic immigrants are likely to vote even more overwhelmingly Democrat. Wehner does not dispute that. The Democrat Party is known as the party of free handouts, and illegal aliens getting amnesty are likely to want those free goodies.
Romney could not have won the last election by winning the Hispanic immigrant vote.