HispanicTrending

By Ruben Navarrette Jr.,
October 28, 2010

San Diego, California (CNN) — With just days until the midterm elections, political parties aren’t doing Latino outreach. They’re taking the easy way out and doing Latino “outrage.”

Instead of bragging about what they’ve done right to address concerns of Hispanic voters, such as jobs, health care, education, immigration, they just point fingers at the other side for what it has done wrong and try to make Latinos angry at their opponents.

President Obama employed that strategy last week during an interview by Spanish-language radio giant Eddie “El Piolin” Sotelo on an Univision radio program. In a provocative line that sent many Republicans into orbit, Obama said, “If Latinos sit out the election, instead of saying we’re going to punish our enemies and we’re going to reward our friends who stand with us …. then, I think it’s going to be harder.”

He warned that if Latinos stayed home and didn’t vote in the upcoming election, they’d be doing the unthinkable: hurting Democrats who support comprehensive immigration reform and helping Republicans who oppose it.

The GOP doesn’t like talk of “friends” and “enemies,” because they’re afraid that, to many Latinos, they resemble the latter. With Latinos likely to account for 25 percent of the U.S. population by 2040, Republicans tremble at the future. They know they’re headed for a series of spankings for decades to come. When they do win elections — as they’re likely to do next week when they claim perhaps as many as 50 congressional seats — they’ll have to do it on the backs of non-Latino voters, the number of which is shrinking in this country.

The Republican Party dug that hole all by itself by pandering to racism with extreme rhetoric on the immigration issue, which makes it appear to be “anti-Latino” instead of “anti-illegal immigration” or “pro-border security.” And it’s interesting that while Republicans think Democrats should be held accountable for defying the will of the American people by ramming through health care reform, they don’t think they should be held accountable to voters for poisoning the immigration debate with nonsense, nativism and negativity.

Unfortunately, Democrats aren’t much better at serving Latino constituents. During the interview, the president disputed Sotelo’s charge that he cared more about health care reform than immigration reform — and that this is why he was able to help pass one but not the other. Obama said that, “on immigration reform, I can’t get 100 percent of Democrats. I can get 90 percent of Democrats, but I can’t get 100 percent.”

At that point, Sotelo should have asked the president why more Democrats don’t support immigration reform and how he intends to change their minds. Instead, he let Obama paint Republicans as the main obstacles to fixing the immigration system.

“That’s why this election coming up is so important,” Obama said, “because we essentially have to say that those who are politicizing the issue, who are supportive of the Arizona law, who talk only about border security but aren’t willing to talk about the other aspects of this, who don’t support the Dream Act, who are out there engaging in rhetoric that is divisive and damaging that — those aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values.”

Mr. President, how about the value in telling the truth and taking responsibility for our failures and shortcomings? Or in keeping your promises so you don’t have to make excuses later?

Let’s put to rest this convenient narrative that it is Republicans who have thwarted immigration reform. You know very well that Democrats in Congress are selling out Latinos to please organized labor, which opposes any reform effort that includes provisions for guest workers. You know this because, during the brief time you were in the Senate, you were part of the problem and even proposed “poison pill” amendments intended to kill immigration reform and help you sew up union support for your 2008 presidential bid.

And you know this because, when Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 — which all but required racial profiling and might as well be called the “Mexican Removal Act” — and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to respond by rallying support on Capitol Hill for immigration reform, you undercut him by telling reporters aboard Air Force One that there was no support for it. Despite lip service about how determined you are to find a solution to the immigration problem, those of us who have been paying attention to this debate know that you’re not the solution. You’re part of the problem.

So, Mr. President, if you want to talk about friends and enemies, let me ask you this: With friends like you, why would Latinos need enemies?

 

Source: CNN

October 27, 2010

By Elise Foley

No one is quite sure how big an impact Latino voters will have on the upcoming elections. Polling early in the month pointed to low turnout among Latinos, who reported lower enthusiasm than voters overall for the Nov. 2 elections. There were reports that Latino voters would stay home if Congress failed to deliver comprehensive immigration reform, compounded by dubious advertising from a pro-GOP group arguing they should skip voting entirely. Meanwhile, Latino and immigrant rights groups have attempted to mobilize voters, particularly against GOP candidates deemed anti-immigrant. Recent polling indicates it might be working: Enthusiasm about voting in the midterms has been steadily growing among Latinos.

Latino voters could make a big difference in certain races, given their status as the largest and fastest-growing minority group in the country. The San Francisco Chronicle has a good list of the races in which Latinos could have the biggest impact next week, all in states where Latinos make up a large proportion of the population.

Here are the Chronicle rankings, along with my summaries of the candidates’ stances on immigration:

1. Sharron Angle (R) vs. Sen. Harry Reid (D) for Nevada senator

Angle has taken a harsh stance on illegal immigration in her ads against Senate Majority Leader Reid, with two fairly extreme ads depicting the evils of undocumented immigrants. (She didn’t earn any more love from the Latino community with her talk of Latino teens looking “more Asian.”) Reid’s campaign hopes her statements, along with Republican inaction on immigration reform, will motivate Latino voters and his Democratic base to vote for him in the primary. His argument is that Latinos who support reform don’t have a better option: “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican,” Reid said in August.

2. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) vs. Carly Fiorina (R) for California senator

Fiorina supports a few immigration reform measures, such as the DREAM Act and reform of the guest worker system. A conservative Latino group supports her candidacy and a National Organization for Marriage-backed group funded Spanish-language ads praising her values. But Boxer has consistently supported immigration reform — including a comprehensive overhaul of the system that would allow some illegal immigrants in the country to gain legal status — and has the edge among Latino voters.

3. John Hickenlooper (D) vs. Dan Maes (R) vs. Tom Tancredo (I) for Colorado governor

The three candidates for governor have wildly different views and rhetoric on immigration, mostly because of the near single-issue campaign Tancredo has run as a third party candidate. Tancredo, a longtime anti-illegal immigration hardliner, has accused Hickenlooper of running Denver as a “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants and aired an ad blaming his Democratic opponent for the death of a toddler struck by an undocumented driver. For his part, Hickenlooper has taken a more positive angle — he even ran an ad in which he showers to wash away negative campaigning — while shooting down “sanctuary city” charges. Maes took increasingly conservative positions on immigration during the Republican primary, and now opposes pathways to legalization. Hickenlooper was excepted to win, but Tancredo seems to be catching up in the polls and could overtake him next week.

4. Alexi Giannoulias (D) vs. Mark Kirk (R) for Illinois senator

Giannoulias supports both comprehensive immigration reform, which would allow some illegal immigrants already in the country to become legal residents, and the DREAM Act for undocumented students and military service members. Kirk has said he would vote no on the DREAM Act and other reform legislation unless border security were addressed first. “This is not the time to do this,” he said of the DREAM Act during an Oct. 19 debate. “We have a decisive, bipartisan majority right now for border control. For making sure the United States can defend itself and make sure that illegal entry into the United States is not possible.” (Notably, this was after the Senate passed a $600 million bill aimed at improving border security in August.) The candidates are close in the polls, but Giannoulias could be put over the edge if Latino voters show up in large numbers as they did for Obama in 2008.

5. Bill Brady (R) vs. Gov. Pat Quinn (D) for Illinois governor

Brady and Quinn have been largely quiet on their immigration views, perhaps because of Illinois’ large number of immigrants from Mexico, Poland and India. While Quinn condemned Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration crackdown as “un-American,” Brady declined to state an opinion on the law. He has also remained silent on the DREAM Act, but says the country should find a way to secure the borders and mend legal immigration without “amnesty.” For now, Brady reportedly has a slight edge.

Also on the Chronicle list are five congressional races: Texas’s 23rd Congressional District, Arizona’s 7th, Colorado’s 3rd, California’s 47th and Nevada’s 3rd.

Source: The Washington Independent

Republican Latino candidates are poised to win key races, challenging the assumption that Latino voters always favor the Democrats.

October 26, 2010

By Luisita Lopez Torregrosa

One of the surprises of this year’s election is that the GOP has put together a stronger set of Latino candidates to run for major seats than the Democrats have. In fact, despite the traditional preference of Latino voters for the Democrats, the party has put forward no Latino candidates for governor or U.S. Senate — not one. At the same time, the Republicans have plucked three top-tier Latinos who are likely to make history on election day.

In New Mexico, Nevada and Florida, Latino Republicans in hard-fought races for governor and U.S. Senate are now the front-runners with platforms highlighting hot-button issues such as jobs, the economy, taxes, the deficit and immigration. Those are issues playing well across the political landscape, including with Latino voters who ranked the economy, jobs and education as their top concerns — with immigration a distant fifth — in a recent Pew Hispanic Center survey.

Buoyed by the Republican steamroller that is expected to take control of the House and perhaps even the Senate, Latino GOP candidates have broken through to the top in politically moderate states. They’ve done so despite their outspoken support for tougher anti-illegal immigration measures like the controversial Arizona law that is bitterly opposed by many Latinos.

In New Mexico, Susana Martinez, a 50-year-old county district attorney, may become the nation’s first female Latino governor. She is leading Diane Denish, 61, Gov. Bill Richardson’s lieutenant governor, by 10 percentage points in recent polling. Richardson, the country’s sole Latino governor, is retiring. Like other conservatives, Martinez favors lower taxes, cuts in Washington spending and tough border enforcement and, like most “tea party”-backed candidates, she is antiabortion and anti-gay marriage. Her appeal to the tradition-minded and law-and-order Latino community is expected to earn her 30% of their vote, which would be an unusually high percentage for a Republican among Latinos in New Mexico.

Of course, the success of Latino Republicans does not alone tear down, or even loosen, the tight Democrat-Latino alliance. But it certainly raises questions about the assumption that Latinos robotically vote the Democratic ticket, and more important, it undermines the conventional wisdom that socially and fiscally conservative Latinos cannot win high office in predominantly Democratic states with large Latino populations. The GOP incursion into Latino territory also serves as a reminder that many Latinos, especially first- and-second-generation immigrants, tend to hold on to old-country traditions and religious dogma, expressing more conservative views than other Democrats on such issues as abortion rights and gay marriage.

In Florida, Marco Rubio, a 39-year-old son of Cuban exiles and former state legislator, leads in a competitive three-way race for the U.S. Senate. If he wins, he will become the only Latino Republican in the Senate. A tea party darling, he is ahead of U.S. Rep. Kendrick B. Meek, a black Democrat, and Gov. Charlie Crist, who is running as an independent after withdrawing from the GOP primary in light of Rubio’s surging popularity. With national media attention focused tightly on this race, Florida has drawn the headliners of the campaign circuit: President Obama, former President Clinton and Sarah Palin. Rubio’s lead in a recent poll is at 46% to Crist’s 32% and Meek’s 20%.

In Nevada, Brian Sandoval, a 47-year-old former federal judge, is projected to become that state’s first Latino governor. He holds a comfortable lead over Rory Reid, the well-known son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is himself in a battle for his political life against tea party candidate Sharron Angle. A mid-October Rasmussen poll showed Sandoval leading Reid 56% to 37%.

Although Latinos make up only about 10% of the nation’s electorate and turn out in fewer numbers than other voters, their participation can make or break races in states such as California and Florida, where many of the country’s Latino voters reside. This year’s election should send a clear message to the Democrats. The projected Latino GOP gains in Nevada, New Mexico and Florida, and in U.S. House races in Texas, Idaho and Washington state, make it clear that the Latino vote is no longer monolithic, if it ever was. If Democrats want to keep the loyalty of Latino voters, they’ll have to work for it.

Source: Los Angeles Times

October 24, 2010
By Gary Nelson

It does matter, Teresa Brice said.

It matters whether someone who looks like you, who thinks like you, who shares your background and perspective, is among those helping shape policy for your city and your schools.

“I think it’s important for all members of the community to feel that their concerns can be heard, that they can identify with people in the position to make policy decisions,” said Brice, a Latina who was defeated in Mesa’s 2004 mayoral election.

“When we don’t have full representation of our community in positions of elected office, others begin to wonder, ‘Can we make an impact? Can we be heard?’ “

So far, the more than one-quarter of Mesa residents who regard themselves as Hispanic have yet to experience that full representation. The prevailing theories as to why that is boil down to two main themes: Mesa’s cultural and religious history, and a lack of participation by Hispanics themselves.

Tom Freestone is a Mesa political veteran whose father, H.L. Freestone, served 12 years on the City Council in the 1950s and ’60s.

Back then, mayors were elected by council members, not the public. H.L. Freestone wanted to be mayor, his son said, but was blackballed after he supported Manuel Matta, a prominent restaurateur, in a City Council race.

“My dad broke ranks and endorsed Manuel Matta and it cost him the mayorship,” Freestone said.

But, he said, “nobody would ever own up” to that being the reason.

Mesa used to be a segregated town, and Manny Cortez, who grew up during that era, believes that has played a part. Cortez has run for City Council six times since 1980.

“The very first time I ran, a good friend of mine that was on the school board said, ‘Manny, I’m not sure that Mesa’s ready to have a Hispanic on the City Council,’ ” Cortez said.

Mesa’s attitude toward Hispanics, he said, is now “a lot better than it was. But yes, there is a kind of a hidden undertone. We can be seen but not heard.”

Phil Austin, founder of the Mesa Association of Hispanic Citizens and a past candidate for the council and the school board, doesn’t believe overt racism is as strong a factor these days.

“I want to refrain from ascribing that it’s purely based on racism or discrimination,” Austin said. “I think, as a student of history, that it has had an effect. But I think as we’ve developed as a society that the people of Mesa are showing less signs of that, and I don’t think it’s fair to give a simplistic approach like that.”

Austin believes that there hasn’t been a Hispanic electoral breakthrough for one simple reason: Hispanics don’t vote as much as other blocs.

“Until Hispanics do vote in numbers proportional to their population . . . the likelihood of getting somebody on the council is going to be somewhat diminished,” he said. “In Mesa there are blocs and groups that vote, and if you vote in blocs you’re going to get people who represent those blocs into office.”

Brice was specific about the most prominent such bloc in Mesa, noting that when she ran for mayor she reached out to the Mormon community to see how she could connect with those voters.

“It’s less than 10 percent of the Mesa population,” Brice said. “But over 90 percent vote. And that’s the ticket.

“In Chicago the political machine is run by a political party. In Mesa we have a political machine but it’s not a party. . . . You have to give the LDS church credit for that type of community organizing, getting a homogenous group of people – in this case, it’s by religious affiliation – and using those networks, getting your message out, making it a unified message and getting out the vote.”

Brice did not specifically blame Mormons for keeping Hispanics out of office, but said, “At some point we have to ask ourselves if this is not an indication that the larger community may not be a little bit afraid of the Hispanic candidate.”

Noting that for years Latinos have been the targets of immigration laws passed by the Legislature, Brice said, “In so many ways, the Latino community feels itself under attack. And part of it, in my opinion, is that as the Latino community becomes larger and more visible, people who are not Latino find that frightening.”

Many Mesa residents, she said, “don’t understand the Latino culture. They don’t understand the Latino priorities. It is an alien population in more ways than that dictated by their citizenship status.”

In that environment, Brice said, many Hispanics are reluctant to seek office, and those who do often don’t have access to experienced advisers who can guide them through the complexities.

Freestone said he has thought often about the question, and that he’s never heard anyone overtly say they don’t want Hispanics serving in Mesa.

“It hasn’t been that they haven’t had candidates, and it hasn’t been that they wouldn’t make a good addition,” he said. “It’s just been an interesting phenomenon. I never could put my finger on it. It’s just been a race, and a race, and that’s just the way the chips fell.”

Source: AZ Central