English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Last evening, a question was asked that received little attention, but merits more than it's gotten.
Hillary Clinton announced Raul Yzagurirre, former president of National Council of "La Raza", as co-chairman of her presidential campaign and to lead it's outreach to Hispanic voters. Hillary said that she has some innovative ways to reach Hispanic voters, one is a bi-lingual program.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070710181944AAqZnbb

There are tons of La Raza sites out there, many of them are on the radical side, as I discovered when googling them this morning. Keeping the borders open and granting amnesty, are of course one of the primary goals.

What are your thoughts and do you feel that this will be advantageous for Hillary's campaign?

2007-07-10 23:05:39 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

17 answers

Honestly, I don't know what to say or think anymore on the border problem. Apparently there are very few in Washington listening to the American people. Both sides.
I'm mad as hell and frustrated with the whole thing.
How much louder can Americans scream that we want the border closed! And get rid of the illegals. It's totally common sense yet no one in Washington is listening.
Same goes for outsourcing our jobs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, it won't be an advantage to her campaign to me. Anybody that supports illegals over Americans is wrong for our country.

2007-07-10 23:17:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

Once again the dems illustrate just how out of touch they are with the rest of the country. Her spin doctors and personal handlers are all part of the same old limousine liberal belt way gang, as evidenced by this latest move. Never mind that the ground swell of resistance from constituencies across the country were a major factor in the bills defeat. As has been seen in the past, this strategy is prone to backfiring.
Al Gore tried it in his bid when he started leaning on the then INS, after learning of the appoximate 400,000 illegals in Florida. "I don't care how you do it, just get 'em naturalized so they can vote".
Kerry tried it, with his bragging about his military record, which was exposed as less than what he was trying to sell, all the while, ingnoring his record in twenty years in the senate. He thought that by selling his war heroics he would not have to answer for his lackluster performance on the hill. Does anybody remember the Kerry Bill? Some great and wonderfull legislation that he wrote that made life better for all? No? That's because there isn't any. He was pretty much Kennedy's lap dog and not much else. You are seeing the same thing here. The dems still ain't got nothin'.

2007-07-11 01:27:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I do not believe that this will be advantageous for Hillary's campaign. La Raza is a racist organization that masks itself as a group interested in immigrants rights. I am not sure about Mr. Yzagurirre however, but I feel his connection to La Raza will become a problem. It is kind of like having the KKK or the Nation of Islam run your campaign.

Hillary is playing her game here. Do what you have to do to court the groups you need. She will say anything to get elected.

2007-07-10 23:30:37 · answer #3 · answered by krupsk 5 · 1 0

Im not sure. The hispanic vote is a slippery one as GOP candidates found out at mid term elections.

Im not sure how Clinton ranks amongst Hispanic votes, but you can be sure the campaign will do and say anything to appeal and cater to all specific demographics as opposed to coming up with concrete policies that would appeal to everyone.

Same old Clinton politics of standing in front of a "rainbow" to be sure their "image" projects well on TV while not being bothered to come up with any substantive policy.

You may recall the "bridge to the 21st century" Bill kept talking about building.

2007-07-11 02:17:09 · answer #4 · answered by Moderates Unite! 6 · 0 0

Indubitably the massive Clinton machine studied this question long and well before deciding that she has more to gain than she is likely to loose. I imagine here strategists are confident that there will not be a large backlash from other voters because most are uninformed and that she will try to pass the Raza groups off as mere humanitarian groups. This is one more excellent reason for me to not vote for her. She will do anything, kowtow to anyone, obfuscate about anything and sell anyone or anything, including the USA down the river for personal gain.

2007-07-10 23:12:48 · answer #5 · answered by Nightstalker1967 4 · 1 1

When I was attending a university in the late seventies/early eighties, La Raza was merely an on-campus group that provided activities for Latin American students and their friends.

Although I am not Latin American, I did attend several of their parties. They were a lot of fun, and the food was great!

There was never any hint of racism at their events.

Although there are radical factions to every group, I do not believe that participation in La Raza brands the person as a racist or radical.

2007-07-10 23:28:41 · answer #6 · answered by MenifeeManiac 7 · 2 2

Good morning.

I think Hillary is playing her typical game, sort of like her husband. She tries to pose as a centrist, but then makes moves like this one to solidify her leftist base.

It will probably help her campaign because it will draw in some Hispanic votes, but it's far enough under the radar to not affect her so-called centrist credentials.

2007-07-10 23:14:33 · answer #7 · answered by Pythagoras 7 · 1 0

La Raza is great for illegal immigrants
La Raza is bad for America

I'm surprised Bush didn't hire La Raza to push is dream of Amensty for illegals on America

2007-07-10 23:26:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

First, I think amnesty is a good idea because the folks here illegally are here because we stopped enforcing our laws and took economic advantage of their presence; you don't punish them for our own failures.
Second, "on the radical side" is a pretty vague condemnation and could also be applied to anti abortion activists and those who advocate further military action in the middle east; can you clarify what you mean by "radical"?
Third, from my answer you can see that it will probably gain her some hispanic votes; those who will be upset are those who are already disinclined to support her.
And btw she is NOT my choice for president although I would vote for her over any of the Repubs I have seen out there.

2007-07-10 23:46:22 · answer #9 · answered by ash 7 · 1 2

why do you care, you don't want Hillary to be President, do you?

So your anti-Democrat and pro-Republican correct ?

and now you want us to look at "information" that you think will make us anti-Hillary also, right ?

of course 75% of the country (the vast majority) wants something smart done about immigration, so the idea of open borders won't sit well with Anyone.

2007-07-11 05:40:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers