Latinos and the GOP, has the damage been done?

September 16th, 2007 · 26 Comments

This morning I found this article in the Wall Street Journal about Hispanics and the GOP. It has become so obvious that the Republicans do not take a welcoming stance toward Latinos, as the Republican presidential candidates have blown off the NALEO and NCLR conferences and only John McCain has accepted Spanish language network Univision’s invitation to participate in a debate. The Republican candidates have heightened the anti-immigration rhetoric to the point of insanity. Representative Tom Tancredo wants a “time out” on all legal immigration, and for what? The population of the United States is aging to the point where our labor supply will grow at a slower rate than our labor demand. We already have a farm labor shortage here in the US.

All of this brings me to another point. What does the Republican Party have to offer Latinos any way? I certainly am not implying that just because one is Latino that he or she should register Democratic. As I have tried to point out, there are issues beyond immigration that are salient to us. Aside from the overtly unwelcoming stance, why would your typical Latino citizen consider registering Republican? The days of fiscal conservatism are gone, as is evidenced by the outrageous bills our current Commander in Chief has managed to rack up in Iraq. Who would have thought that a Democratic President would have based his economic policy on a balanced budget? Also, I don’t think that we are really any safer despite the war and the creation and expansion of the Department of Homeland Security. The whole morality argument has managed to explode in the face of the GOP. The same party that brought you family values gave us Senator Larry Craig, Congressman Mark Foley, and Senator Vitter. This kind of hypocrisy doesn’t fly with Latinos, who are very family oriented, as it shouldn’t for other Americans either. So maybe someone out in blogsphere can help me identify some issues that the current GOP leadership has been addressing or plans to address that would inspire Latinos to jump on the red train. Any takers?

As I end this post, I also found this article coming out in next week’s Newsweek. A little more food for thought.

Tags: Democratic Party · GOP · John McCain · National Association of Latino Elected Officials · National Council of La Raza · Republican Party · Uncategorized

26 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Michaelr // Sep 17, 2007 at 6:44 am

    Based on the GOP’s anti-union stance, their immigration policies, and their rhetoric on the minimum wage, their collusive partnership with managed health care, their disappearing attention to public education, and their hypocritical relationship with Corporate America, the military industrial complex, and the religious right. What kind of Latino voter actually believes the GOP represents their interests?

  • 2 The Kaiser // Sep 17, 2007 at 8:22 pm

    I communicate with numerous Cuban-Americans in Miami, Florida. And they’re all mostly Republicans. However, the so-called Cuban Republicans are not well-versed as to what the GOP’s platform is, and most of them don’t know the difference between Barry Goldwater’s definition of conservative politics and George W’s compassionate conservatism. That doesn’t seem to carry any weight with them. They’re mostly still upset about Fidel Castro and the Bay of Pigs, and they blame all of that on JFK and the Democratic party. It’s almost bizarre. So there’s a prime example of the mindset of one group of Latinos when it comes to the process of political contemplation.

  • 3 HispanicPundit // Sep 18, 2007 at 1:21 am

    What does the Republican Party have to offer Latinos any way?

    You bring up a good question. I could mention the GOP’s stance on the minimum wage, for example, or environmental (or lack thereof) laws, or its views to small businesses, its support of competition (the minorities best friend) and so forth.

    While all of those are good and important, there is one undeniable benefit to supporting Republicans over Democrats when it comes to minorities – and that is school choice. Nothing can help minorities break the cycle of poverty more than education, and nothing improves education, especially inner city education where it is the most lacking, more than school choice. And on that, Republicans are clearly on the side of the minority. If I had to pick one issue that keeps me on the right (not necessarily Republican) more than all others, it would probably be school choice.

  • 4 Bearguez // Sep 18, 2007 at 8:32 pm

    Are you referring to school vouchers for high school students? I refer to this because the GOP has not done anything to promote and further higher education for minority students.

  • 5 Weiser // Sep 18, 2007 at 8:55 pm

    The Republican Party sees all Latinos as mules and they aren’t shamed to admit that. It’s those Hallelujah Latinos that are gullible enough to believe everything the Republicans spew out of their mouths. They believe anything preached from a pulpit.

  • 6 HispanicPundit // Sep 19, 2007 at 1:31 am


    Are you referring to school vouchers for high school students?

    Not just high school, all grades. Charter schools in the short term and school vouchers in the long term, yes. The Democrats solution – more money for education – has simply left minorities behind year after year( though it has certainly been very rewarding to the teachers union, a core constituency of the Democrats).

    Government monopolies never work, history has taught us that repeatedly and it seems only Republicans care enough to do something about it.


    I could say the same thing about Latinos and Democrats (with the added exception that the Democrat party sees all Latinos as idiots). Your point?

  • 7 webmaster // Sep 19, 2007 at 5:00 am

    HP, I have read some positive literature about school choice and charter schools as well. However, I don’t think on that topic alone the Republicans can say that they are clearly on the side of minorities. NCLB, a policy initiated by GWB and passed by the then Republican congress, has not been very successful. I actually have consulted for private supplemental educational services company, and I have witnessed some of the failures and frustrations first hand.

    Ok, how are the GOP minimum wage and environmental points of view helpful to the Latino population?

    I know that minorities tend to suffer the most from environmental pollution. If you have ever driven through Southeast Los Angeles county, it becomes very obvious.

  • 8 HispanicPundit // Sep 19, 2007 at 6:02 am

    NCLB has always been a Democrat thing, not Republican (don’t equate Bush with Republicanism). Remember, it was crafted by Kennedy and a greater percentage of Democrats voted for it than Republicans did. I am not a fan of NCLB (I remain on the fence so far), but I am a HUGE fan of school choice for the reasons stated above.

    Ok, how are the GOP minimum wage and environmental points of view helpful to the Latino population?

    Please read this on the minimum wage and this on environmental laws. As I tell my environmentalist friends, I am too poor to be an environmentalist.

  • 9 El Loco // Sep 19, 2007 at 1:51 pm

    I’ve always thought that on social and cultural issues, Latinos and Republicans have much more in common than what either side is willing to admit. Generally – since that is the only way you could really talk about Latinos – both are anti-abortion/pro-life (pick your favorite). For both groups, religion shapes a good part of their social attitudes – although for Latinos is Catholicism and for Republicans is some protestant group or other. Both groups have a strong affinity towards “traditional” family values and such.

    As far as “school choice”? Well, I’m not a believer in process but on results. Republicans gave us “no child left behind,” which is nothing more than one enormous unfunded mandate that has really done nothing to improve education. Not to mention that education is generally a state matter.

    Nothing can help minorities break the cycle of poverty more than education, and nothing improves education, especially inner city education where it is the most lacking, more than school choice.

    Actually, nothing improves education more than having qualified teachers, safe schools and classrooms, adequate supplies and equipment, and motivated students. If you take care of the first three, the motivated students will follow.

    Additionally, many of the problems inner-city students face in school are community problems as well. You can do everything and more with the schools, but if you don’t address the community’s problems, those schools will always remain at a disadvantage.

  • 10 Michaelr // Sep 19, 2007 at 9:04 pm

    The Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln bears absolutely no resemble to the GOP party of today. Discard the mythologies you learned from text books in high school and observe the actions of the Republican Party through the 1920’s, 1950’s, 1980’s, and the 2000-2007, and you tell me if they practiced conservative fiscal policies, downsized the federal government, or gave across the board tax cuts to all U.S. citizens. The GOP is no longer a progressive party. They haven’t been for more than a hundred years. And they have not practiced what they preach for over a century. They are in power to protect the Status Quo, and maintain their culture of corruption. Why would any minority who wants to empower themselves be a part of that?

  • 11 webmaster // Sep 20, 2007 at 4:02 am

    HP, I can follow your minimum wage argument, but I have also read evidence suggesting that the minimum wage increase of 96-97 actually did help the poor and minorities. Furthermore, there isn’t that much evidence of job loss attributed to min. wage increases.

    Check this out here:

    As for you being too poor to be an environmentalist, well, I know many poor environmentalists. They re-use, recycle, carpool, take public transportation, collect discarded food stuff that big grocers and restaurants trash, etc. I have also heard people, like you, insist that we have lots of free space that we can easily exploit to house people. That may be the case, but we don’t have the infrastructure to support population growth in some of those sparse areas. We may have space, but is it usable? You can probably say the same thing about the world’s water… sure, we have water, but can you safely consume it?

  • 12 HispanicPundit // Sep 20, 2007 at 6:08 am

    Thanks for the feedback. As a rebuttal to my minimum wage argument you quote a study by the Economic Policy Institute. Here is what <a href=”” rel=”nofollow”>Wiki says on the EPI</a>:

    The <strong>Economic Policy Institute</strong> or <strong>EPI</strong> is a progressive United States think tank based in Washington, D.C. and concerned with, as its name implies, the formulation of economic policy. It is considered to be center left in its views…

    EPI is organized as an IRS Code Section 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and has a staff of about fifty, of whom about ten are Ph.D. researchers. Its board of directors consist largely of labor union officials. Between 1993–2003, approximately 59 percent of EPI’s funding came from foundations, 29 percent from organized labor, and 6 percent from corporations and other organizations.</blockquote>

    The labor connection is the most pertinent point. Gary Becker, Nobel Laureate in economics, <a href=”” rel=”nofollow”>explains the connection</a>:

    Unions always favor increases in minimum wages, even when as in this case the minimum only apply to some employers. Any increase in the minimum wage would raise the demand for unionized skilled workers who would substitute for the less skilled employees displaced by the minimum. Unions have an additional reason to try to raise the costs of big box companies like Wal-Mart’s since these companies do not have unions, and aggressively oppose them. Higher costs forced on non-union companies reduce the competition they offer to unionized companies.</blockquote>

    He elaborates more on this <a href=”” rel=”nofollow”>here</a>. In other words, quoting a study by the EPI against the minimum wage is about as valid as me quoting a study by Exxon mobile against global warming.

    It isn’t just economic theory that substantiates this, it is experience as well. For example, minority unemployment figures have been lower under Bush, when the minimum wage was not raised, than under Clinton, see <a href=”” rel=”nofollow”>here</a>. Or compare the unemployment numbers of minorities in the United States to those in Europe – Europe has a significantly higher minimum wage and has stronger labor laws and as predicted minorities have a higher unemployment rate, often times well into the double digits.

    If politicians really cared about the poor and not merely political power at any cost, then instead of supporting the minimum wage they would support the EITC. As a means of reducing poverty it is a far more effective tool, see <a href=”” rel=”nofollow”>here</a>. But they don’t, why? University Of Chicago professor Richard Posner <a href=”” rel=”nofollow”>explains</a>:

    So why are the Democrats pushing to increase the minimum wage rather than to make EITC more generous? Three reasons can be conjectured. First, unions, which are an important part of the Democratic Party’s coalition, favor the minimum wage because it reduces competition from low-wage workers and thus enhances the unions’ bargaining power and so their appeal to workers. This would not be as serious a problem for unions if minimum-wage workers were organized. But the fact that most minimum-wage workers are part time makes them uninterested in joining unions. Second, increasing the EITC would mean an increase in government spending and hence in pressure to increase taxes, and the Democrats wish to avoid being labeled tax-and-spend liberals. And third, genuinely poor people vote little. The number of nonpoor who would be benefited by an increase in the minimum wage, when combined with the number of nonpoor workers whose incomes will rise as a result of reducing competition from minimum-wage workers, probably exceeds the number of nonpoor who will be laid off as a result of an increase in the minimum wage. Teenagers, moreover, will be among the groups hardest hit, and most of them do not vote”.</blockquote>

    Economist Russell Roberts has more <a href=”” rel=”nofollow”>here</a>. In addition to the above, there is the added fact that many of the politicians that support the minimum wage come from states and communities that would not be affected much by a rise in the minimum wage. A minimum wage of $7 in San Francisco where Pelosi is from means alot less than that same minimum wage in a small city in Alabama. Most businesses, even fast food restaurants, in San Francisco already have to pay more than the federal minimum wage because either the state of California already has a higher minimum wage or the cost of living is so much higher in the area – either way, the federal minimum wage means little to nothing.

    Think of it this way, if politicians who support the minimum wage really think of it as an efficient tool to help the poor then why don’t they peg it to inflation? In other words, why do they wait until every so many years to raise the level again? Why not have it automatically raised with inflation so that year after year it stays the same and you wouldn’t risk having another long stretch of republican control where raising it is prevented? Or why not have it adjusted to the communities cost of living? In other words, why should Clanton, Alabama, have the same minimum wage as say San Francisco, California? Wouldn’t it make more sense to have San Francisco’s much higher? The reason is simple, because having it pegged to inflation will remove it from the political spectrum and therefore remove the gains of addressing it in political elections and having it pegged to the cost of living will spread the costs out to the districts these politicians come from.

    <em>As for you being too poor to be an environmentalist, well, I know many poor environmentalists.</em>

    Of course you do, but who do you think is more likely to support a higher gas tax? The poor or the rich? Or who do you think is more likely to support regulations against the auto industry, the poor people that are employed at that auto industry or the rich? Who do you think is more likely to support ‘open space’ regulations, those who do not own homes (the poor) and would be forced to drive further to work and/or pay more for future real estate or those that already have homes (the rich)? What country do you think is more likely to support strict environmental laws that hamper economic growth, underdeveloped countries like India and China where economic growth is pulling millions and millions (and I do mean millions!) of people out of poverty every year or rich countries like the United States that can afford such strict environmental regulations? Environmentalism, frankly speaking, is <em>a luxury</em> of the rich.

    To be clear, I am not saying that one side is right and the other side is wrong, I am merely pointing out the trade-offs involved – and, arguing that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to care about economic growth and the benefits that result.

  • 13 Barista // Sep 20, 2007 at 5:31 pm

    To me, I understand the vibe of the blog to be that most latinos should favor the Democratic party, a statement to which I agree. Let me preface this by stating that I am a registered Republican, although I do not share many Republican views, nor do I support many of the current administration’s viewpoints. I’m also assuming that the ‘latinos’ being referred to in the blog are most latinos in America who have recently came to the U.S., or are still starting out to make better lives for themselves here.

    I know there are many sub-stances on issues to both parties, such as abortion and illegal immigration, but to me, I view the main ideal differences between the two parties as follows: 1) The Republican party is more or less a conservative entity, that favors less government intervention, and favors business and entrepreneural endeavors; 2) The Democratic party is a more liberal entity, and it endeavors tend to favor more government intervention in taking care of citizens. Now, I know I probably missed a few political science classes, and I don’t want people emailing me or responding to this post to correct my views on this, but this is just how I see it. Given the same, latinos would probably benefit more from holding a democratic view point, since most seem to still be making their way here, and could use and and all help that we could get from the government.

    I recently heard that sometime in the future, we’re all going to mixed race in some fashion or another. Until that time, there are always going to be discriminations and separations. I drove through a few neighborhoods the other day, and noticed all black neighborhoods in bad areas, the same for latino neighborhoods, some middle class neighborhoods, and some really nice ones. The ones in the really nice neighborhoods appeared to be predominately Caucasian. Now the only real barrier from stopping someone to moving to the nicer area is not race, but money. Unfortunately, that’s what keeps people really separated. We need to educate ourselves, get better jobs, and better yet be those business owners so we could better ourselves, make that money, and break down those barriers. It’s not going to happen if we rely on the government to do it for us. Government intervention is nice to help us out and get started, but in the end, it’s on our own merits that we rely to actually better ourselves.

    Now, to something of great political importance, this coffee I carry is Segafredo Zanetti, the no. 1 coffee in Italy…check it out people.. Have a great day!

  • 14 webmaster // Sep 21, 2007 at 1:37 am

    HP, I think that you are talking about a living wage, which you are right would be more appropriate to take into consideration the cost of living in different areas.

    Look at this experiment w/ the living wage in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Employment has increased after the living wage went into effect, and the number of families needed temporary assistance has declined.

    I like what this economist Robert Pollin has to say:

    “The principled position is: ‘Why should anyone tell anyone what to do? Why should the government?’ I just happen to disagree with that. A minimally decent employment standard, to me, overrides the case for a free market.”

    Why is it that European countries can pay out a living wage and still produce goods and services that compete well with the US and Japan?

  • 15 Bearguez // Sep 21, 2007 at 4:19 pm

    Hispanic Pundit: Instead of regurgitating the doublespeak of think tanks, whose studies are all compromised by the entities that fund them, you should hop on a plane and spend some time in Western Europe or even Santa Fe, New Mexico and see for yourself. The European Union countries have 35 hour work weeks, six weeks of paid vacation, and health and retirement benefits you can’t even imagine. And still their domestic production values meet, and in most cases exceed those of the rest of the world. Quality of life issues are foremost in all the European Union nations. Why do you think they haven’t had any wars in 62 years? You should open your eyes and ask yourself why the CEO of Daimler Benz in Germany has a one million dollar base salary and his counterpart here in the United States for DaimlerChrysler had a 21 million dollar base salary before Mercedes Benz finally dumped its American division, that should give you a hint of the corruption and greed that exists in Corporate America. This is why we work 60 hour work weeks and can’t save any money. You need to remove your head from the sand.

  • 16 yave begnet // Sep 22, 2007 at 6:41 pm

    HP is like Bill Kristol, who sounds reasonable but likes to start bloody wars in the Middle East. He is civil but not actually reasonable. The answer to the post’s title question will come in next year’s election, and I suspect the answer will be yes. I think people like HP will be increasingly isolated until the GOP starts adapting to the modern world and the public mood.

  • 17 PMG! // Sep 23, 2007 at 7:05 pm

    First off, the good news is that since the mid terms, the registration tide has turned and it looks like will continue up until the the general next year. Secondly, there are lots of young Cubans and a lot more ‘other latinos’ flooding Miami and other parts of Florida. (We recently did focus groups there and got a great mix of folks for a change! :))

    Eitherway, it’s all about marketing. the GOP has successfully painted themselves as the “Mero Macho Party”. Despite our best efforts of keeping recuiters out of our High Schools, Latinos are still signing up for the armed forces at an alarming rate. Of course the general weak will of the Demogratic party doesn’t do anything to dispell that myth either… :P

    Further, many Latinos, to get ahead, are small business owners (and many more aspire to be!) and again, the GOP has always painted themselves as pro business. That is how Arnold got major Latino Support and $$$.

    Right now, lots of people think the Dems have a cake-walk to 2008. But the GOP won’t give up without a fight. So Dems are really going to have get in the mud themselves so that these ‘myths’ can get busted…

  • 18 HispanicPundit // Sep 25, 2007 at 2:25 am


    Sorry for taking so long to respond. I just got back from my five day vacation to South Beach Florida earlier today. It is my final vacation before school starts – this Thursday, sigh.

    I wonder why the HTML didn’t come through in my comment above? It has before. Did you disable HTML in the comments? If you did so, can you please enable them on that comment? It looks horrible the way it is now.

    Since most of you what responded has been addressed in my comment above, I will make my response brief. First, with regard to Santa Fe, New Mexico, the results have not been as rosy as you imply. See here,

    As far as the minimum wage in general, here is more.

    David Neumark, an economics professor at UC Irvine, writes:

    “First, a higher minimum wage may discourage employers from using the very low-wage, low-skill workers that minimum wages are intended to help. Second, a higher minimum wage may hurt poor and low-income families rather than help them, if the disemployment effects are concentrated among workers in low-income families. And third, a higher minimum wage may reduce training, schooling, and work experience—all of which are important sources of higher wages—and hence make it harder for workers to attain the higher-wage jobs that may be the best means to an acceptable level of family income.

    The evidence from a large body of existing research suggests that minimum wage increases do more harm than good. Minimum wages reduce employment of young and less-skilled workers. Minimum wages deliver no net benefits to poor or low-income families, and if anything make them worse off, increasing poverty. Finally, there is some evidence that minimum wages have longer-run adverse effects, lowering the acquisition of skills and therefore lowering wages and earnings even beyond the age when individuals are most directly affected by a higher minimum….”

    He goes on to show here,

    That this negative affect is especially harmful to blacks.

    Remember Adriana, my arguments are not mere speculation. A majority of economists believe that the minimum wage is harmful to the poor (near unanimous on the effects of the living wage), studies confirm it, and places with a higher minimum wage (europe vs. the usa, for example) have a higher number of unemployment amongst low income workers. In other words, it is the theory and the data that validate my point – and it is those in favor of the minimum wage who are on shaky ground. You may not like the results, but if you truly are committed to helping the poor and low skilled, you should be strongly against the minimum wage.

  • 19 HispanicPundit // Sep 25, 2007 at 2:36 am


    I was just in Santa Fe, New Mexico a couple of weeks ago for the Zozobra and Fiestas. I know Santa Fe, New Mexico.

    As far as Europe goes, sure they have the 35 hour work week, long vacations, and strong labor laws. I am certain the highly educated white middle and upper class benefits greatly from such. What I am here addressing is not how those laws affect them, but how they affect the lower class an minority. And, when it comes to that, there is no doubt that the minority and lower class in Europe experience far higher levels of unemployment than in the United States – often two, and sometimes three times higher.

    In addition, happiness research has consistently shown that people in the United States, even poor and minorities, report higher levels of happiness than their counterparts in Europe. It makes sense too, if you lack job opportunities there is very little to be happy about and no amount of benefit to the white middle and upper class is going to compensate for that.

  • 20 webmaster // Sep 25, 2007 at 5:02 am

    HP, I also came across this article from MSN:

    Why would so many economists argue to increase the minimum wage then?

    I’m sure that we could throw statistics and economists’ opinions back and forth for hours.

    I believe that I have read that the UK has lower unemployment than the US, and they pay their workers a higher wage. In my recent trip to Europe, I did not notice as many homeless under the freeways and in the public parks. Granted, it was only an observation, but I did not sense a level of desperation that one sees more and more here in the USA.

  • 21 HispanicPundit // Sep 25, 2007 at 5:55 am

    Gary Becker, Nobel Laureate in economics and professor of economics at the University Of Chicago explained why here:

    “A recent petition by over 600 economists, including 5 Nobel Laureates in Economics, advocated a phased-in rise in the federal minimum wage to a much higher $7.25 per hour from the present $5.15 per hour. This petition received much attention, and the number of economists signing is impressive (and depressing). Still, the American Economic Association has over 20,000 members, and I suspect that a clear majority of these members would have refused to sign that petition if they had been asked. They believe, as I do, that the negative effects of a higher minimum wage would outweigh any positive effects. That is one reason I would surmise why only a fraction of the 35 living economists who received the Nobel Prize signed on to the petition–I believe all were asked to sign”.

    With regard to the UK and unemployment, I quote Bloomberg,

    “Unemployment has dropped as the U.K. heads for its best economic performance in three years….

    The unemployment rate in the U.K., as measured by International Labour Organization standards, stayed at 5.5 percent in the three months through April. That compares with 4.5 percent in the U.S., 7.1 percent in the euro area and 3.8 percent in Japan.”

    So while the UK’s economy is doing significantly better, and their unemployment figures are much better than europe’s in general (which, btw, also proves my point since the UK has a higher minimum wage and stronger labor laws than the USA but less so than Europe, making their unemployment figures match up as expected – with a higher unemployment than the USA yet lower than Europe as a whole) it is still far higher than the USA’s unemployment numbers.

    Oh and, here is the trick question…who do you think bears the brunt of that larger unemployment rate? The white or the minority? The skilled or the unskilled?

  • 22 Bearguez // Sep 25, 2007 at 6:44 pm

    Quoting statements from compromised sources doesn’t advocate your noble intentions to speak on behalf of the poor and unskilled. Maybe you should take a lesson from Bono’s approach to all this. Unless the poor can conquer their fears, remove the shackles of religion, and seek higher education they will always be poor. Dependent mentalities will always be the fodder for wealthier social classes and religious entities to exploit. My parents made the leap. And this is one of the few places in the world where that can happen. Quit whining, and tell the poor to quit filling out job applications at Wal-Mart and go back to school.

  • 23 leesee // Sep 25, 2007 at 8:43 pm

    Long winded comments give me a headache, kudos to you for putting up with it.
    I’ve stated time and time again Republican’s don’t give a rat’s patoot about us, it’s all lipservice. The unwillingless to move away from the coded racist rhetoric has put the final nail in the coffin.
    See Paul Krugman for a gringo’s explanation of my stated point:
    “Paul Krugman: Politics in Black and White” and a black man’s perspective:
    Bob Herbert: The Ugly Side of the G.O.P.
    All of that aside are my personal opinions stated in my blog entry on September 19th, just last Wednesday and only three days after you posted this entry.
    I’m with you I don’t need any fancy statistics to tell me who is more concerned with who or what I am.

  • 24 Bearguez // Sep 26, 2007 at 12:16 am

    Hey Leesee…we must share the same parents.

  • 25 Michaelr // Sep 26, 2007 at 1:52 am

    Hey Bearguez, you are politically angry. But I understand, and I support you homie. Now…how are we going to transmit this message to the masses who watch three hours of Network television per day?

  • 26 // Dec 7, 2007 at 5:33 pm

    […] Yesterday the Pew Hispanic Center released a new poll showing 57% of registered Latino voters identifying as Democrats or showing a preference for the Democratic Party. It looks like the hard line positions outlined by Republican presidential candidates has backfired on their party as a whole. Only 8% of Latinos surveyed indicated that that the Republican party had more concern for their issues than the Democratic Party. Interestingly enough, 41% of Latinos surveyed indicated that there isn’t a difference between the parties. These statistics merely reflect what has been happening over the course of the last few years. We even mentioned this on the blog a few months back. […]

Leave a Comment