LatinoPoliticsBlog.com

Seneca: Latinos & The GOP

March 9th, 2009 · 45 Comments

This is the first of a two part blog piece by Seneca illustrating the history of Latinos and the Republican Party.

Recent commentary in the aftermath of the recent Obama victory and the 2006 Democratic Congressional win suggests that the country once again has moved noticeably to the Democrats. This stems from the Iraq War and the Katrina debacle coupled with the economic crisis which appear to have firmly routed George W. Bush’s party, the Grand Old Party of Lincoln. The undeclared and unwinnable war in Iraq took its toll, as it became a war of political attrition as most ‘undeclared’ wars have; like Korea and Vietnam. The leadership disaster during Hurricane Katrina was plainly lethal to Bush 43′s second term.

In 2004, it was reported that Bush won up to 44% of the Latino vote…some challenged these figures but it does seem that at least 40% of the nation’s Hispanic vote went to the GOP in that election. Not even the more popular Ronald Reagan was ever able to garner this percentage among Latinos. With George Bush, the GOP achieved the highest percentage or portion of the Latino vote that it had ever won in any national election. Making it more significant was the tightness of the election in several key states like Ohio. Yet, even as the GOP appeared to be confronting it nadir in the 2008 elections, it is safe to say that just over 30% of the voting Latinos stayed with the GOP. This is a remarkable figure given the circumstances. Hence, this political behavior certainly requires deeper examination.

First, it should be noted that historically (beginning with FDR) the Hispanic vote, which was mostly Mexican-American, tended to go massively with the Democrats. The slow political empowerment of Latinos began as FDR and Truman lifted them out of the Great Depression. These defining moments were not as dramatic as Lincoln beating the Slavocracy of the South and emancipating the African-American from the shackles of slavery. As this feat made all Black-Americans overwhelmingly Republican, there was a prevailing GOP ascendancy for the next seven decades. Yet, FDR’s leadership role in the Great Depression and his wife, Eleanor’s continuous efforts to bring social justice to the African-Americans began a slow movement to attract voting Blacks to the Democratic Party, especially in urban areas.

But it must be recalled that before the Civil War to the 1960′s, the Democratic Party was solidly based in the Jim Crow segregated Southern States; these Bourbon or Moss Back Democrats were in coalition with big city party machines in the North; like Tammany Hall. If one looks back at the record we find that, Pres. Woodrow Wilson was an avowed racist. FDR, though he fully backed his wife’s commitment, was not particularly concerned with the plight of the American ethnic minorities. Yet, President Truman did integrate the Armed Forces after WWII. The record also reflects that during the post war Hispanics, as they became more politically active, tilted toward the Democrats. It should be noted that Eisenhower did draw many Latino votes, but not in significant numbers.

It was the 1960 election of JFK that became the baptism of fire politically for Latino voters nationally. For the first time, the largely Roman Catholic identification of the Latinos with the Democratic candidate was a driving force. Latino elected officials were minimal during the period leading up to the Kennedy-Johnson period. Only New Mexico had elected Hispanics to federal office (US Senator Chavez and Congressman Montoya both Democrats) prior to this. Henry Gonzalez of Texas and Ed Roybal of California were elected in the wake of the JFK-LBJ victory. Subsequently, the assassination of Kennedy, the ascendancy of Lyndon Johnson and his successful accomplishments in civil and voting rights, Martin Luther King’s unspeakable murder and Bobby Kennedy’s assassination solidified both Latinos and Blacks within the Democratic Party.

The first Republican national candidates who truly sought to reach out to Latinos were Nixon and Rockefeller in 1968. The former who came from southern California (and recognized the closeness of his loss to JFK in 1960) acknowledged the potential of the growing Latino vote. Rockefeller, as Governor of New York, had a sizable Puerto Rican constituency which he had courted in his race for governor. He had made several minor appointments within the Puerto Rican community while in state office. Nixon’s awareness of the Latino vote, during his second attempt to become President in 1968, motivated him to make modest efforts to court Latinos in order to avoid all of them going for the Democratic candidate, Hubert Humphrey. Once elected, Nixon began immediately to prepare for his 1972 presidential re-election bid. He made certain that there were Latino groups advocating his re-election. He made high profile appointments and formally created a political position in the White House (although Johnson had done so but not as formally) to have an outreach to the Spanish-speaking groups (as we were referred to before Hispanic became fashionable). Nixon, in his Southern strategy, was focused in winning-over the formerly Democratic South. When President Johnson’s 1965 Civil Rights Public Accommodations Bill was passed into law, he is quoted as saying: “…there goes the South…”  He was referring to the reaction of the southern white Democrats to the empowerment of Blacks and protection of their voting rights. LBJ correctly predicted that the whites in the South would abandon wholesale the Democratic Party. Nixon strategically laid out the plans to permanently capture the South, which had previously hated the GOP for beating the South in the Civil War and imposing Re-Construction.

To be continued…

Share

Tags: African-Americans · Barack Obama · Democratic Party · GOP · GWB · Henry B. Gonzalez · Iraq War · Kennedys · Latino History · Presidential Elections · racism · Seneca · voting trends

45 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Anna // Mar 10, 2009 at 4:09 pm

    The GOP is finished. They just can’t see it yet.

  • 2 Michaelr // Mar 10, 2009 at 9:14 pm

    As long as there is a Bible belt filled with white people, there will be a GOP. Or should I say a GOD P masquerading as Republicans.

  • 3 Anna // Mar 10, 2009 at 11:00 pm

    It doesn’t matter because they don’t have enough votes anymore, unless Latinos vote for them in big numbers, which I highly doubt will happen. (Although more Latinos are becoming evangelical.)

    Look at the exit polls from this election. McCain won among Republicans and among white people overall, and not just in the South. For instance McCain won the white vote in New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Indiana, Florida, New Mexico–all states that went Democratic. He also won it in the South and most of the Midwest and West. Blacks vote heavily Dem, but they’re not a big enough group to make up the difference.

    Latinos pushed Democrats over the top in obvious places like Florida but also in Virginia and North Carolina, which haven’t gone Democratic in decades. They say that Arizona and Texas are about to go Dem too.

    So they’re in power in large part because of our votes, but let’s see if they deliver.

    And don’t expect the media to mention this either. They want people to think that Obama won a majority of white voters and that Latinos pushed him over the top only in New Mexico. lol

    http://www.slate.com/id/2204464/

    http://www.slate.com/id/2204464/sidebar/2204528/

  • 4 BettyM // Mar 11, 2009 at 11:06 am

    Interesting history on the GOP and Latinos. I look forward to reading the second portion.

  • 5 Irma // Mar 11, 2009 at 12:04 pm

    Now that Latinos have exercised their political muscle – I suggest we take advantage of it to force
    EITHER party to address key Hispanic issues.

    Like : immigration………

    If the Republicans supported giving a green card to illegal aliens who happened to be parents of
    American citizens (ie.this is a description of many Mexicans who are in the US illegally) -
    I would VOTE Republican…….

  • 6 Pati Politics // Mar 11, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    I want to know what the Republican party has to offer Latinos if you aren’t religious or evangelical. They used to be fiscal conservatives, but Reagan and GWB were spending fools. It took Clinton to reign in the deficit (a more conservative Democrat). In theory, I like the idea of fiscal conservatism and a more lean government, but the Republican party seems to have moved away from that. You even saw it with all of the expenses that VP candidate Palin racked up. Maybe Seneca or someone else has some thoughts.

  • 7 ERocha // Mar 11, 2009 at 2:50 pm

    Great historical rundown. I have written several post on courting the Latino vote. I would like your take on GOP operative Lionel Sosa.

    My latest post has to do with the latest dust up between Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele. The attack mode the far right wing of the GOP is taking, is the same they did when Mel Martinez was Chair of the GOP. They don’t just have Latino problem, but the GOP has a minority problem.

  • 8 Alejandro // Mar 11, 2009 at 4:39 pm

    Irma,

    I see what you are saying, but I don’t know if I could vote Republican on purely an immigration issue alone. Look at how many Republicans are so anti-immigration. They got mad at John McCain for even putting his name on that Kennedy-McCain immigration bill, plus they allowed that Tom Tancredo to run as a Republican (his whole agenda was anti-immigration). It seems that the extreme wing in the Republican party has the loudest voice.

    And then there are the Cuban Republicans, who seemingly want to shoot themselves in the foot, by not wanting to ease restrictions on their home island. How is that supposed to make things better for those people?

    I’m really at a loss for what the Republican Party can offer Latinos right now… they have Rush Limbaugh hoping that Obama fails, this RNC chair who vows to reach out to the hip hop crowd, and that Bobby Jindal who wants to refuse stimulus money.

  • 9 Reyfeo // Mar 11, 2009 at 5:17 pm

    Less taxes,
    fiscal responsibility,
    less government,
    pro-life (most Catholics and Evangelist fall into this category), AND
    the right to own guns without restrictions from the government.

    …I beleive most Latinos are for these views, which traditionally points to conservative.

    This used to be the Republican Party, which is why GWB won the Latino vote twice. Obviously they blew their opportunity and the Latino vote has once again shifted.

    My opinion is American Latino voters sway with emotion, many of my conservative freinds voted Dem this last time around (a vote they are starting to regret), mainly because of the fiscal irresponsibility of the last 8 years.

    I disagree that the American Latino vote is locked in to the Dems. In fact, at the rate Obama is burning the cash (albeit invisble) once again, I here the silent roar of an American Latino vote, which because it is sensitive to issues like this, will sway in the 2010 and 12 election in favor of the conservative party.

    To date, I have seen no immigration issue solutions…Obama seems to have every agenda to solve and remedy, except the two which matter the most to us; economy and immigration…why? He throw us a bone with Hilda Solis, wow, give me a break!

    Anybody notice Obama signed this 8000 plus earmark bill with no cameras around…please what happened to tranparency, no earmarks and elimination of pork, line by line?

    Slam me if you want, but many like me don’t like what we’re seeing…politics as usual, spending at a more alarming rate that surpasses GWB, a president who consistantly gets slammed on this website. LET ME SAY THIS AGAIN, OBAMA HAS SUPASSED GWB and ALL OTHER PRES COMBINED IN SPENDIND IN THE LAST 50 DAYS.

    The “Ameircan” Latino is not stupid, many like me are seeing the snake oil we were sold and to date have seen nothing.

  • 10 Anna // Mar 11, 2009 at 6:30 pm

    Re: “Less taxes,fiscal responsibility,less government…”

    Those are slogans. The Republican Party doesn’t stand for any of things and they never have. Look at their actions, not their words.

    They believe in transferring America’s wealth to multi-national corporations.***That is what they have always been about***

    They only time they complain about spending is when money is being spent on education and infrastructure.

    It’s not their money. If taxpayers want to spend money on education, the GOP has no righ to transfer that money to Halliburtion or the crooks on Wall St.

    Republican economic ideology (trickle down, Friedman economics) has destoyed the economy all over the world so much that they might have to nationalize the banks. These people are crooks and whenever they are in power they create an economic recession or depression. That has been the case since Herbert Hoover in 1929!

    As for spending, it called a stimulus. You’ve been brainwashed to think that all spending is bad. The Dems are
    trying to get money into the hands of the middle class and poor so that they spend it on goods. That circulates money, which creates demand and jobs. Most economists (not druggie dropouts like Limbaugh) say that
    the stimulus is not big enough. Who knows if ut wioll work, but we already know that more tax cuts for corprations do not work.

    Reyfeo you support an economic ideology that is bankrupting this country.

    As for Obama, Latinos are not on his radar, which was obvious during the primary. If he doesn’t deliver, I will not hesitate to vote for somebody else.

  • 11 Reyfeo // Mar 11, 2009 at 8:08 pm

    No Anna, your California, ‘we must give every illegal housing, medical care, and allow Unions to pay higher wages when they arent merited’ that’s breaking this country.

    …and yes be ready to vote for someone other then the Dems this next time around, not even you can possibly approve of what’s happened the last 50 days. What a mess…!LOL

  • 12 Anna // Mar 11, 2009 at 9:01 pm

    Sorry Reyfeo, but you’re wrong. Those things are pennies compared to the trillions–trillions– that the GOP robbed over the last eight years. And the damage is still unfolding. Do you have to be out in the street before you get it?

    And how can you be a Republican when the GOP hates Latinos so much? And don’t tell yourself that they only hate illegal immigrants. Wrong. They hate you too. They hate all Latinos and just use immigration as a pretext for Latino bashing.

    I would never vote for any of them. I’ll either vote Dem or third party.

  • 13 SDChe // Mar 12, 2009 at 1:04 am

    Anna said:
    “Those are slogans. The Republican Party doesn’t stand for any of things and they never have. Look at their actions, not their words.”

    -You could easily substitute Republican with Democrat and your comment will still hold. A politician is a politician is a politician.

    “Republican economic ideology (trickle down, Friedman economics) has destoyed the economy all over the world so much that they might have to nationalize the banks.”

    -So you prefer Keynesian economics? That is what is wrong with what you are arguing against. You don’t take into account the other side of the equation.

    -If the federal government passes a fiscal policy of increased government spending during a recession, and suppose the money supply is going to be held constant, to finance it’s budget deficit, the government borrows funds in the money market. The result is the increase in the demand for money raising the price paid for borrowing money: THE INTEREST RATE.
    -Because the government will engage in borrowing from the public, it will be competing with private businesses for funds. Once the interest rate increases, it will crowd out a significant amount of private investment that would otherwise have been profitable.
    -You might say that in the short run crowding out is seen as negligible effects on the recession, but in the long run it has detrimental consequences for future generations. If there is substantial amount of public debt due to increased government spending (and there is continual refinancing of the large public debt) then that will transfer to future generations as a smaller stock of capital goods, therefore future generations inheriting and economy with a smaller production capacity, and therefore (all other things equal): A lower standard of living.

    -Surely you don’t agree with Keynesian economics model more than M. Friedman. You cannot ignore the supply side of government spending and it’s unforeseen long run effects, great or small. Do you really believe in ” In the long run we’re all dead anyways”?

    -Fiscal policy is generally aligned with one’s view of the size of the government of what it should or shouldn’t be. If you are for government spending during a recession then the policies you will agree with will either expand or preserve the size to of the government, and the opposite, if one is for tax cuts during a recession, the policies that one will agree with will either restrain or reduce it’s size.

  • 14 SDChe // Mar 12, 2009 at 1:18 am

    “…. California, ‘we must give every illegal housing, medical care, and allow Unions to pay higher wages when they arent merited’ that’s breaking this country”.

    -So true. Accept it or not, the demand for labor has surpassed it’s equilibrium and has been completely overshot. This country can no longer absorb the mass influx of illegals.

  • 15 Anna // Mar 12, 2009 at 10:44 am

    SDCHe: “So you prefer Keynesian economics?”

    That’s what got us out of the Depression. You can argue in favor of Friedman/trickle down, supply side economics all you want, but the results speak for themselves.

  • 16 SDChe // Mar 12, 2009 at 11:50 am

    “That’s what got us out of the Depression”.

    -Even though entitlements have grown exponentially ever since the Keynesian model was first suggested and was more widely used? (and it has been proven that Great Depression shouldn’t have been so deep and so long had they not used deficit spending)

    -It is beyond me how you can blatantly ignore long-run effects of deficit spending.

    - all the while disposing of price determination and distribution theories, (which are the backbone of economics theories) a la flavor of Keynes.

    “…../trickle down

  • 17 SDChe // Mar 12, 2009 at 11:52 am

    “…./trickle down

  • 18 SDChe // Mar 12, 2009 at 11:56 am

    hhhmmm??? my comments have been censored. Twice. lets try this again. “trickle down” is not a real economic term. it’s political rhetoric.

  • 19 SDChe // Mar 12, 2009 at 11:56 am

    ….and liberal talking points.

  • 20 webmaster // Mar 12, 2009 at 12:10 pm

    SDChe,

    Nobody has censored your comments.

    As a warning to all, comments that simply post links to other articles without explanations or that are completely off topic are deleted because they don’t advance the conversation.

  • 21 Reyfeo // Mar 12, 2009 at 12:46 pm

    C’mon Webmaster! You let Anna post anything she wants! For once we get someone with some real meat and potatoes who wants to post additional info sites and you censor it?

    Is this really why you only get the liberal side of things on this website…please respond so i know not to blog here anymore. I’ll be sure to pass that along to other bloggers as well if that’s the case…?

    ..
    ^

  • 22 webmaster // Mar 12, 2009 at 12:52 pm

    Reyfeo,

    I did not censor SDChe’s comments. This blog post by Seneca is an attempt to provide a more conservative point of view about Latinos and the GOP. I allow pretty much all comments to be posted, except for those that post links (spam) without an explanation or those that are so anti-immigrant that they border on hate.

    Reyfeo, if you notice, we are critical of politicians on the left and the right. We have blogged about Joe Baca (Dem), Loretta and Linda Sanchez (Dems), Alberto Gonzales (Rep), Mel Martinez (Rep), and so many more.

    Reyfeo, your comments have never been censored as well. I don’t censor, but I do reserve the right to delete. You are more than welcome to discuss the issues, but I’m hoping that everyone on the right and the left can remain civil.

  • 23 SDChe // Mar 12, 2009 at 1:04 pm

    Yeah i know. I understand the policy behind not letting people post websites that remove us from a conversation, but I wasn’t trying to post an url. I was just pasting what Anna had written above in #15 starting from the forward slash. I can see how that was seen as and url. Anyways, asi es la vida with computers. Besides my two seconds of frustration after i thought I was being censored, thanks for letting us comment on this blog. It on aids in sparking conversation amongst latinos. I only see this as an upside.

  • 24 Reyfeo // Mar 12, 2009 at 6:19 pm

    My bad Webmaster…I thought you were censoring SDChe…all is well it seems.

  • 25 Anna // Mar 12, 2009 at 6:43 pm

    Re: “trickle down” is not a real economic term. it’s political rhetoric.

    Yeah, used by Ronald Reagan. He said that if the rich got tax cuts that the gains would trickle down to the middle class. Of course that was BS.

    And no, Keynsian economics did not prolong the Depression. Sigh…please read some economics books instead of repeating druggie Limbaugh talking points.

    Trckle down, Friedman, supply side–it’a all the same, and it’s all been a disaster.

  • 26 Pete Gonzalez // Mar 13, 2009 at 7:46 am

    Less taxes-for corporate America

    fiscal responsibility-deregulation is not fiscal responsibility.

    less government-unless it is to promote our brand of morality.

    pro-life (most Catholics and Evangelist fall into this category)-Ensure that abortion remains legal to control our supporters emotionally and politically.

    AND
    the right to own guns without restrictions from the government-Really? No restrictions? Let felons own guns? Let domestic violence offenders own guns? The mentally ill? Juveniles?

    The rhetoric preached by the Republicans may appeal to many Latinos but their mean-spirited actions are repulsive to many of us.

    What actions do you say? I can start and end with Jason Chaffetz (Utah) and his one-trick pony platform of putting undocumented families in tent city prisons.

  • 27 superdestroyer // Mar 13, 2009 at 7:46 am

    GWB probably received less than 40% of the Latino vote in 2000 and much less in 2004. However, the GOP is more than Bush. Down ticket, the Latino vote stayed with the Democrats.

    If you look at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, it is probably the second most liberal group is Congress behind the Congressional Black Caucus.

    It is hard to say that Latinos ever vote conseravtive when they overwhelmingly support big government, high tax, high regulation politicians.

    Also, the amnesty program support by Reagan has probably lost California to the Republicans forever and will eventually lose other states. Importing millions of poor Mexican is the same as importing millions of automatic Democratic voters.

    The Republicans will eventually be buried under the Latino demographic avalanche. The real question is what happens when the U.S. becomes a one party state. Will Latinos lose power when all of the former Republicans start voting in the Democratic primary?

  • 28 Reyfeo // Mar 14, 2009 at 7:36 am

    PG
    –no body should have to pay almost 50% in income taxes…thta’s what the rich pay, and its why a lot of corp America has left ot Mexico and many other cheap labor nations. It doesn; bother you becuase you don’t produce much? (yes, this is question)

    fiscal responsibility…I agree some regulation is good

    “pro-life (most Catholics and Evangelist fall into this category)-Ensure that abortion remains legal to control our supporters emotionally and politically” not sure what you mean by this, are you for or against, either way, I think it classifies you a part-tie Catholic/Christian if you are confused with the difference (and i really am not being sarcastic here)

    Guns…you were doing fine and then got emotional here…did youreally think I was including Felons in my argument…stay focused PG, and try not to overstate others comments. Besides like drugs (think like a Califonian for a second…are you one?) these weapons are already in the hands of felons and non-law abiding citizens, and I bet you never had to protect a family, your family from the bad guys in your local neighboorhood, have you?

    SuperD…”It is hard to say that Latinos ever vote conseravtive when they overwhelmingly support big government, high tax, high regulation politicians”…provide some facts on this…nothing of the Bush Latino support says Lations vte unanamously in favor of Democrats, maybe in California, but have you seen the stats for the indivisual states like Texas, Florida (where the Cuban community are hugely in favor of Reps).

    and laslty, your statement “The Republicans will eventually be buried under the Latino demographic avalanche.” Really? I’m sold!
    (you must be working for Obama, I hear he’s hired bloggers to spew this type of rhetoric on the web…)

  • 29 superdesroyer // Mar 14, 2009 at 11:07 am

    The polling data that Bush received 40% of the Latino vote has been discredited many times. Even in Texas, the counties that are majority Hispanic voted heavily for Kerry, In addition, down ballot voting is heavily Democratic since the districts do not have competitive Repubican districts.

    The U.S. will be less than 50% white some time between 2030 and 2040. It is mainly due to the Hispanic birthrate being about twice the white right rate and due to the high level of illegal immigration. The Republican Party is faced with trying to get more than 60% of the white vote for picking up Hispanic voters. Neither one is likely to happen.

  • 30 Anna // Mar 14, 2009 at 5:01 pm

    Re: “no body should have to pay almost 50% in income taxes…thta’s what the rich pay,”

    No, they don’t. lol

    Bush cut taxes on the rich. The richest Americans in 2006 paid a rate of 17.2%. During the Clinton years it was 22.9%

    And the wealthiest Americans get mot of their money from capital gains, not income.

    Whe are you going to get started on that reading list Reyfeo?

    http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/31/business/fi-richtaxes31

  • 31 Reyfeo // Mar 14, 2009 at 7:31 pm

    “The polling data that Bush received 40% of the Latino vote has been discredited many times”…discredited by whom?…you’re a conspiracy theorist aren’t you? All records, at least the ones most of us on this blog go to (even Anna) show the contrary…You can conger up what ever you need to sell your story but fact remains, Latinos don’t always sway in one direction. Just look at Seneca’s article above…We are the finicky ones and no one (Reps or Dems) has really been able to pin us down to consistently acquire our vote. My opinion is Clinton and Obama, both rode in on the coattails of disguised change. I’m sorry to say but in both cases Republicans in both Bush and Reagan’s tenure wore out their welcome mat because of the power greed. America to include the American Latino was ready to move away from Reaganomics; the same can be said with Bush, and so here we are. But to say a growing American Latino means a win-win for Democrats in the years to come is BIG stretch.

    Anna: Wrong…Clinton tax bracket for anyone making more than $288,350 (the so called rich) was 39.6%…Bush dropped this rate to 35%.

    So it wasn’t 50% like I stated, but it is 40%!! Who wants to work and make that much money so that more than a 1/3 goes to the federal gov’t?? Who!! That’s crazy!!!
    …and might I add, the same reason America was born more than 200 years ago, tired of high taxation by the Brits.

  • 32 Reyfeo // Mar 14, 2009 at 7:33 pm

    ..are you seriously going to get your info from the Loser/Liberal Times?!?!? Gimme a break Anna.

  • 33 Anna // Mar 14, 2009 at 9:26 pm

    At least I posted a link. Don’t confuse income with capital gains. Income is money you earn from working, and capital gains is money earned from stocks and bonds.

    And the tax rate Obama is proposing is still lower than it was under Nixon and Reagan’s first term.

    Anyway, why do you care how much the rich pay in taxes? They aren’t at home saying, Oh poor Reyfeo, we should cut his payroll taxes.

    Talk radio has all these people worrying about the rich paying too much in taxes. lol

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_03/017201.php

  • 34 Anna // Mar 14, 2009 at 9:34 pm

    As for our vote, actually it’s been fairly consistent. It’s about 35% Republican except in 1992, 1996, and 2008.

    As long as the GOP have a strategy of scapegoating immigrants for every problem on earth, and as long as they propose unconstitutional, inhumane policies like confining immigrants to tent cities, they will lose the majority of our votes. And without our votes, they can’t win. It’s as simple as that.

    That you are still willing to vote for these failures really says something.

    Why do you vote Republican anyway? What do they offer you?

  • 35 SDChe // Mar 15, 2009 at 12:44 am

    Anna said:
    “… instead of repeating druggie Limbaugh talking points.”

    –Nice ad hominem. I see a pattern in your posts which leads me too conclude the logic you use in reasoning.Sad.

    “Sigh…please read some economics”

    –Wow. So economics professors and published experts have been wrong this whole time! Not just published American economists but published economists from other countries are wrong?! OK. if Anna says so.

    psst! Anna, google~~~> AD HOMINEM.
    (and avoid it like the plague) :o )

  • 36 Reyfeo // Mar 15, 2009 at 9:33 am

    Anna: I believe, and we are all starting to see, Obama is using the same Clinton Economic play book…my guess is he probably thinks if he rolls the dice twice, it will pay off again. My other yet benighn guess is he has no leader and or experience of his own and so why not take a page out of the past successe of the likes of Bill Clinton (not a crazy notion at all BTW)…the problem, however, is these are different economic times. AND, Obama seems to be inserting a more socialist type standard when dealing with todays problems. Some would say he is just not focusing on the economy, seeing it is the BIG problem of today. The polls do show a slight but yet downward disheartening not only among Republicans, but among his Democratic base. This is the same base who was promised change and all they seem to be seeing is the same ol’ disguised politics.

  • 37 Anna // Mar 15, 2009 at 11:34 am

    Re: “Obama seems to be inserting a more socialist type standard when dealing with todays problems.”

    How do you define socilaism?

  • 38 Pete Gonzalez // Mar 17, 2009 at 12:15 am

    ugly king,

    “It doesn; bother you becuase you don’t produce much? (yes, this is question)”

    When I decipher what you were trying to say I will get back to you.

    Ensure that abortion remains legal to control our supporters emotionally and politically-”not sure what you mean by this,”

    I am not surprised.

    “I think it classifies you a part-tie Catholic/Christian if you are confused with the difference ”

    I do not wear part ties or full ties. I also do not tie up Christians or Catholics although it could be fun especially if they are sexually repressed and need to act out.

    I am confused with your writing style, or lack of.

    “Guns…you were doing fine and then got emotional here”

    I did not “get” or become emotional. This is the internet. What is there to get emotional about? Do not flatter yourself Mr. ugly king.

    You must be Projecting.

    You did write:
    “The right to own guns without restrictions from the government”

    No restrictions. You failed to state that there were groups who should be restricted. Personally, I think we should be able to own tanks and rocket launchers.

    hey, I am kidding mr. ugly king.

    “I bet you never had to protect a family, your family from the bad guys in your local neighboorhood, have you?”

    What does that have to do with the price of tacos in Tijuana?

    Are you out with your gun protecting the families of California?

    Wyatt Earp is in the house.

    Playing with his gun. Bang, bang, shoot, shoot.

    neigh-boor-hood? Is that the same as saying:
    Just say NO to ill-mannered people wearing klan approved head coverings?

    “(think like a Califonian for a second…are you one?) ”

    Nope.

    City of Big Shoulders.

    Chi-Town.

    The Windy City.

    I think like a Chicagoan. We are the crazy Mexicans. We endure 30 below temps and never cry about it.

    What is a Califonian? Is that how they say Californian in Alabama?

    But, how exactly does a Californian think? Is it “one thought’ fits all? Or do you just love to generalize…and misspell?

    I know. I know. The classic retort. You cannot respond to my argument so you attack my spelling and grammar.

    I failed to see an argument in that responsive and defensive rant.

    Nor is there one in mine.

    When you develop an argument and learn how to articulate it please give me a call. If I do not respond I may be partly tied up to an armed evangelical in the 50% tax bracket, so please be patient.

    Your new friend for life

    the not-so-ugly serf.

  • 39 Reyfeo // Mar 18, 2009 at 11:57 am

    My2 cents is every Mexican not here legally needs to go home, especially if they are “crazy mexicans” hiding in Chicago.

  • 40 HispanicPundit // Mar 18, 2009 at 7:43 pm

    I am a conservative…often times Republican… minority, for those who want to know why a Latino would vote GOP aside from religious reasons, I wrote a long post on that when I started my blog here.

    A much shorter version is this: The US model is FAR better for minorities than the European model (its more debatable when you are talking about middle and upper class white people, but the comparison is stark when dealing with minorities). Democrats want to move the USA in the European economic model direction, Republicans want more of the USA model.

  • 41 Latina Minuteman for Congress // Apr 6, 2009 at 8:30 am

    [...] light of Seneca’s recent blog posts on Latinos and the GOP, I thought that I would highlight a blog written for SiTV on a [...]

  • 42 BIANCA // Aug 3, 2009 at 1:14 pm

    ANY LATINO THAT WATCHED THE SOTOMAYORJUDICIALHEARINGS,
    WITNESSED THE HARSH DISRESPECTFUL TONE,USED TOWARD HER FROM OLD ANGRY WHITE MALES.

    THE SOUTHERN WHITES(kkk BASED)hate latinos!!

  • 43 immigrant investor visa // Dec 7, 2009 at 2:57 pm

    It no longer matters what the politicians SAY they will do or even PROMISE they will do. Talk is nothing. They have promised millions of people…millions of VOTERS that they would address their needs. Not even FIX anything, just address them. And, still, to this day there has been ZERO movement from the new administration on the immigration reform front. I have had my heart broken so many times by their repeated INaction…how can I ever trust or even hope in them again?

  • 44 tito // Feb 16, 2010 at 7:29 am

    The gop is filled with bigoted members and there issues mirror that.

  • 45 Immigrant Investor Visa // Jun 29, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    All I can do is hope that what we are seeing here is a natural progression. With Reagan, there was very little contact made with minority groups. With Bush, there was more, but very little action. With Obama, there was a heartfelt line of communication and empathy, but still, no action. Perhaps the next liberal president we have will not only talk to these groups, but actually follow-up on the promises they make!

Leave a Comment