I will be posting some photos from the event within the next few days. One key point that was made by Organizing for America California Director Mary Jane Stevenson was that 60% of Latinos who voted in 2008 indicate that they intend to come back to the polls in this year’s midterm election. Hopefully, our community can exceed this estimation, as midterm elections are just as important as presidential year elections.

The politico portion of the event started with Mayor Villaraigosa, who talked about 30/10 initiative, which is the City’s plan to build 30 years of transportation projects within ten years. He also talked about how when he goes to Washington, D.C., he lobbies Senator Boxer and always finds her to be accessible and approachable, ready to work on behalf of Angelenos and Californians. Essentially, Villaraigosa was present to introduce Senator Boxer, and he was rather casually dressed in a short sleeved pink shirt. He also appeared to be in some pain as he was stretching is elbow from his recent bicycle crash.

Senator Boxer then addressed the room and basically made an appeal to the organizers that she needs their help to be her “spokespeople” in the upcoming election. Senator Boxer mentioned three key accomplishments that she’s particularly proud of: her role in the creation of the federal after school program, bringing the first combat casualty center to California (which is in San Diego and was the only other center after Walter Reed Hospital of this kind), and doubling transportation funding for California.

Senator Boxer also talked about her opponent’s critique of her hair. Carly Fiorina was caught on an open microphone back in June saying that Senator Boxer’s hair was “so yesterday,” and Boxer took an opportunity to say that Fiorina’s policies are “yesterday” meaning that they are a throwback to the Bush era. Some key points that Boxer highlighted were her support of the HIRE Act, her support of the small business bill that has a deficit neutral rating and would create a half million new jobs, that Fiorina doesn’t support a woman’s right to chose, and that Fiorina still supports more offshore oil drilling despite the BP disaster. Senator Boxer also noted that Fiorina was fired from Hewlett Packard and left the company in a state of low morale and with rising stock because of the hope that a new leader would be better.

To close the speaker portion of the event, Secretary Solis addressed the group and noted that 3.6 million jobs have been saved because of the stimulus. Saved jobs means that there are fewer unemployment checks for her department to cut. Solis also mentioned that when she was in Congress she was well aware of the layoff and jobs situation but that the previous administration was not attentive to the issue.

Solis highlighted three immediate goals that she has: to save jobs, to generate more good paying jobs, and to make sure that people have the ability to collectively bargain in the workplace. She also talked about generating more jobs in wind and solar energy with companies that will keep the manufacturing here in the US.

Overall, I thought that Secretary Solis was the star of this small event, but Senator Boxer was a pretty close second. Both appeared to be more prepared than Mayor Villaraigosa, but then again, both Solis and Boxer are regulars on the national stage. Secretary Solis and Boxer both personally thanked as many people as they could approach in the room for attending the event with handshakes, and Secretary Solis was very attentive in listening to the concerns of the organizers. Once the politicians left, the organizers were left in the room to strategize for the upcoming elections.

Recent polling shows that Latinos support health care reform overwhelmingly. Moreover, health care was identified as being more important than immigration. Actually, while immigration was ranked as an important issue in our community, health care reform still beat it by a margin of 3-1. Plainly, the unregulated insurance market has not produced more competitive prices so that more of our people can buy health coverage. People in our community are more likely to be uninsured or vulnerable of losing coverage. So when Latino congressmen in districts with substantial Latino populations decide to roll the dice with this health care reform, I think that they are effectively gambling with their seats.

See what Representative Cuellar said earlier today:

Now take a look at what Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois) wrote in the Huffington Post today. This part really caught my attention:

“But last week, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus sat down with the president, and he asked us to vote for the health care reform bill — a bill that denies immigrants the opportunity to purchase health care with their own money. It was one more in a string of disappointments for the Hispanic community, and today, I no longer find myself able to confidently say “yes” when President Obama asks me for his support.”

Now I know that many of us are frustrated regarding immigration reform, but it’s going to be the Latinos who are citizens (born here or naturalized), the ones who will benefit from the passage of health care reform, who will be headed to the polls in November to vote. I am fine with the idea that immigrants should be able to pay into the health care system with their own money, but I think that this portion of health care could be handled in a subsequent bill down the line. The chief urgency is health care, as indicated by the polling in our communities.

Among the larger public, people are still largely divided on the health care issue. However, I do want to point out this piece about the popularity of Medicare when it passed in the 1960s. Essentially, the public was divided like it is now, but the program ended up being wildly popular.

If you live in Congressmen Cuellar’s and Gutierrez’s districts, and do support health care, I urge you to call the House of Representatives switchboard (202-224-3121), ask for the appropriate representative and kindly voice your concern. We may not have another opportunity to insure as many people in our communities who are struggling without this reform.

Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska had introduced an amendment into the Senate version of the health care bill that would ban insurance companies operating in proposed insurance exchanges from offering abortion coverage to anyone receiving a government subsidy. This move plainly would put poor women at a disadvantage, whereas privileged women have always had access to abortion even when it was illegal (because they can afford black market procedures or can travel elsewhere for the procedure). Many Senators offered convincing arguments about why Nelson’s amendment and threat to block the health care bill was not a good idea. I particularly liked what Senators Durbin and Menendez had to say though.

Durbin offered this:

“Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., argued that if Nelson opposes abortion he should reconsider his threat to block the overall health legislation because it would provide 17 million uninsured women of childbearing age access to birth control, counseling and other reproductive services that might prevent unwanted pregnancies.”

And Senator Menendez said the following:

Some of the Latino men of the House of Representatives should take a cue from Senator Menendez.

Fear in public discourse is as ancient as political competition. While man was in the caves, he became fearful of fire, the shadows it created, lightening, thunder, the wind or snow storms, the swollen sea, the flooding streams, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, the sun, the moon, an eclipse, shooting stars, the movement of clouds, the howling of wild animals in the night and many other phenomenon. One ancient protagonist among our ancestors who became most important was not the leader of the pack but the ‘medicine man’ or better known as the ‘warlock’, the ‘sorcerer’, the ‘brujo‘ or simply the person who practiced the ‘black’ or supernatural arts and purported to be a healer as well. This manipulator of the human spirit in most races, tribes, clans and extended family became often associated with the idea of a ‘priest’, ‘rabbi’, or a ‘holy man’ and gradually a significant political influence. The politics enter when this brujo is able to not only use the natural fears of man but also to become the chief counselor or advisor to the pack or clan leader, king, prince, nobleman, or simple chieftain. His use of fear over the pack or clan helped him control the extended family or clan for the ‘leader’. This clever or artful individual becomes key to the organization especially as Plato described the tribe leaving the cave and out into the foreboding world. This demonstrated man’s urge to discover the world and confront the perilous challenges of an untamed one. A world of superstition (evil eye, spells, curses, disease, death…) made for a terrifying world existence. This struck at man’s most primal instinct: survival. The threats and fears have been a staple throughout human history.

In modern day public discourse, the politicians and the men or the persons of the cloth invariably use some sort of fear. The smite and wrath of God is one of the most ancient invocations of fear. The politicians, who became the managers of the city or nation-state, invariably invoked the power of the prince or head of state or nation to control the masses. Civil law seems to have codified the nobility’s claim to wealth especially land. Penal law as it developed was to control the peasantry, the lumpen, or the simply the lower orders. The penalties in violating penal law were obvious (in ancient times usually considered a threat to the governing class’ position in society). In autocratic societies or dictatorships, these legal ukases or decrees are enough to put most people on notice. The fear of the prince or king seeking retribution is enough on how to scare the populus into submission. Stalin did this most effectively in the 1930s with his wholesale slaughter of about 30 million Russian peasants (Kulaks) and millions of others. Hitler was another feared character. His totalitarian state created fear of the Jews and then sowed the hatred and monstrous destruction of the European Jewish population. But in democracy the use of fear is implicitly suppose to recede. Why? Because man has learned how to speak for himself, cheerfully groups up with like-minded people and seeks the best leadership. Man in the current democratic process has become more subtle in the manipulation of a more modern social being. Yet, the shameless use of ‘fear-mongering’ has risen to surging and commanding heights in recent decades in the Western World, especially the United States.

Fear-mongering in wars is quite common. We must not forget Winston Churchill’s cynical but true comment when asked how he could justify the lies and distortions Britain carried out against the Third Reich: he retorted with typical wit and bemusement: “…the truth is so precious that it must be safeguarded with a bodyguard of lies…” In today’s modern world of political discussion, we should be so lucky to have Churchillian wit or dazzle! Instead we have mostly mortifying demonstration of vituperative, lacerating, wicked inferences, slander and fear-mongering at its most evil. Talk show radio has become the medium of choice in the fear-mongering attempts. The political right with its nationalistic, ethnocentric penchants is in the forefront. Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Glen Beck, Anne Coulter, and some would include Lou Dobbs. The thundering sound of these prophets of doom and gloom certainly captivate a large segment of the American body politic. They readily resort to using ‘wedge’ issues like abortion, gun control, anti-gay sentiment to garner support for the Republican Party. Just like the Iranians call their political party, Hezbollah (Party of God), some wags call the GOP the ‘Party of God’ since it thrives in its core attraction to the religious fundamentalists. The right appears to have a much more defined array of issues that they invoke in fear-mongering: raising taxes, budget deficits, soft on commies or enemies of American people, gun control , pro-life (anti-abortion), use of busing for school integration, welfare, health care system, environmental issues, feminist rights, affirmative action and host of other themes. The liberal left lamely creates fear by pointing out that the right is excessive and dangerous and will eventually seek a higher cost. The left is often inclined to target capitalism as being ‘savage capitalism’: “the rich get richer and the poor get kids.”

Among the Latino community, fear-mongering has been constant. The Latinos before World War II were fearful of being arrested, lynched, detained or merely question by white authorities. The fear inherently was one of being targeted as a non-white or alien and therefore no basic rights could save you. The courageous work of the LULACS and other pioneering groups helped stem the fear. Fear was used by white political bosses to get the Latino vote. Staying on your side of town was a time honored approach to keep the Mexicans in their place. Sometime after the Civil Rights of 1964 with public accommodations fully attempting to integrate American society, the northern part or non-segregated portion of the US began to react to busing of school children in particular. The North, which earlier had been seen as tolerant of integration, now felt threatened. Concurrently, the Hispanics for the first time began to distance themselves from the Black American community, which previously had been a faithful partner in fighting discrimination. Cubans and Puerto Ricans came from island nations with a long history and presence of Afro-Caribe people. Hence, they showed no threat in general with working or living with non-white or non-Hispanics, though, a discernible patronizing feeling was commonly detected. Yet, Latino communities, especially Mexican-Americans who had rarely lived alongside African Americans, were targeted for fear-mongering by racists, intolerant individuals, hate-purveyors etc. The black communities were also whipped up to fear the ‘hordes’ of newly arrived Latino immigrants, who would displace them and take their jobs. Plainly, fear was the instrument of use in most cases.

The present day challenge for Latinos lies in the current immigration discussion. It is riven with fear of the newly arrived immigrants will bring down wages, take their jobs, create more negative image of Latinos, ruin neighborhoods, cause more discrimination against Latinos with a backlash from both the white and the African American communities. Fear has accompanied man since he left the caves and will continue to be used by the powerful or would be powerful to control groups, especially the poor, dispossessed, the undocumented, people of color, the less educated and the insecure middle class or working classes. Fear is the preferred instrument of control especially in politics and social interchange. The Latino leadership must be vigilant that they do not follow the already present example often demonstrated in contemporary US society. As FDR eloquently said ‘…there is nothing to fear but fear itself…’

Update via Matt Ortega on Democrats (note the Hispanic Caucus Members), who voted for the Stupak amendment, which passed:

Altmire
Baca *
Barrow
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Boccieri
Boren
Bright
Cardoza *
Carney
Chandler
Childers
Cooper
Costa *
Costello
Cuellar *
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Ellsworth
Etheridge
Gordon (TN)
Griffith
Hill
Holden
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Langevin
Lipinski
Lynch
Marshall
Matheson
McIntyre
Melancon
Michaud
Mollohan
Murtha
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz *
Perriello
Peterson
Pomeroy
Rahall
Reyes *
Rodriguez *
Ross
Ryan (OH)
Salazar *
Shuler
Skelton
Snyder
Space
Spratt
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Wilson (OH)

Obama’s minority status did not move Latinos to vote for him as overwhelming as the African-American voters did. One must ask if these GOP Latinos are sensitive to the immigration debate and do they side with general Republican sentiment on the issue. Then again, the Democrats are not breaking down doors to address the immigration conundrum either.  In sum, the Latinos will probably continue not to be monolithic in inclination to the Democratic Party, but will be a significant and increasingly powerful actor in Democratic Party activities. Meanwhile, the GOP will continue to reach out to the Latino community in a determined way— as it has in the past– by being the first of the two parties to appoint the first Latino White House Fellow Henry Cisneros, first Assistant Secretary Al Zapanta by President Ford, the first two Latinos (Cavazos and Lujan), to the Cabinet by Reagan and Bush 41. Bush 43 later attempted to name the first Latino to the federal Court of Appeals (Miguel Estrada); plus many other visible appointments. Similarly, the Democrats have also found the need to appoint Latinos to the Cabinet and sub Cabinet like Federico Pena, Henry Cisneros and Bill Richardson.

In the end, the GOP understands that the growing Latino population will certainly be an even more important element in national, state and local elections and must seriously examine how to keep the Latino base of 30% within the party and make it grow. The Democrats must demonstrate that they do not take the Latinos for granted (two thirds of the group’s voters) and involve them even more in the party process and in the governing and policy-making process. The three significant Latino voting groups currently are Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and Cubans. Soon they will be joined by millions of other recent Latino immigrant groups like the Central Americans, the Caribbean and South Americans. The race will be on for their political loyalties. The looming debate on immigration will smoke out many of the hidden sentiments among the American body politic. If one of the national parties allows the debate to become one of being anti-Latino/Hispanic versus being just anti-illegal entry into the US, then the Latino population will react accordingly and move solidly to the non-offending party. The case of California in the 1990s is instructive. When the GOP sitting governor (Pete Wilson) attempted to garner votes by assailing illegal immigrants, the political target was designated to be the medical and school costs inflicted on California. Sadly, the upshot became a fiercely anti-Latino sentiment which was readily palpable. This resulted in a more activist and pro-Democrat Latino constituency. The GOP cannot afford to have this repeated at the national level. The only continuous and reliable Democrat state in national elections and where the Latinos reside in sizable numbers is New York. California is increasingly considered a loyal Democrat state with its growing Latino population. New Mexico tends to have a more independent Latino constituency which can tack Republican or Democrat, but usually it votes Democrat. Texas Latinos are largely Democrat in orientation, tradition and behavior. All six Latino Congressmen are Democrats as they are in California, but the Republicans have become the dominant party in Texas at virtually every level. Many Texas Latinos vote for the GOP on national and state-wide elections. But the majority remains Democrat. All demographic studies reveal that the Latino population in Texas will be preponderant in the not too distant future and the GOP will be the big loser given its current insufficient or indifferent outreach to the Hispanic community.

In the last thirty years, the Hispanic community in Florida has been dominated by the effective Cuban-American political efforts in favor of the Republican Party. However, the election of 2008 revealed that the majority of Latino voters in the state are no longer Cubans. Moreover, the GOP hold on the Cuban-Americans is no longer the case. Recent arrivals of Cubans along with third generation Cuban-Americans tend not to automatically affiliate with the GOP. Additionally, the arrival into Florida of significant numbers of Central Americans, South Americans, Mexicans and the movement of Puerto Ricans from the Northeast indicates that they are not following the traditional Cuban lead on voting Republican. Again, the GOP has an enormous challenge in how to attract Latinos into its big tent. Just electing the National Chair of the Party like Senator Mel Martinez is insufficient. The party must have a serious outreach with a welcoming fervor. Latinos have to feel comfortable with a party’s philosophy on race and ethnicity, treatment of their social and economic issues and concerns and be made to feel an integral part of the membership. In sum, some Latinos have found some solace with the GOP for economic, social, fiscal, national security, and other philosophical reasons. But their allegiance is tentative if the Party’s discourse becomes pervasively unwelcoming.

The Pew Hispanic Center is reporting that Obama won 78% of the Latino vote in New Jersey, which is well above the 66% of the Latino vote that he took nationally. This makes me wonder if President-Elect Obama will involve a Puerto Rican in his cabinet as Seneca speculates, since New Jersey is one of the states with the largest Puerto Rican populations. He could also tap Senator Menendez (D-NJ) or Congressman Sires (D-NJ) for leadership positions as well, but those names haven’t been floating around. Both Menendez and Sires are both Cuban-Americans.

Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez caused a stir last week with her slate mailer for Democratic candidates, which was photographed at her polling place and later published in the Orange County Register. After the big stink she made about voting for Hillary Clinton in the roll call over the summer, I wonder if she even voted for Obama. Only she knows. But it was encouraging to see her holding a mailer that had Obama’s name on it in big bold print. Register readers were criticizing the photo implying that Congresswoman Sanchez was campaigning for Senator Obama at the polling place, which is illegal. I’m kind of surprised that she brought in a slate mailer instead of the actual sample ballot, but whatever floats her boat. Congresswoman Sanchez doesn’t strike me as a big reader, and maybe this was easier for her than cracking open the actual sample ballot to read the pros and cons of the initiatives and candidate statements. She did look nice in her “Nancy Reagan red” suit when she showed up to the polls though. And I have to give her props for co-sponsoring the Freedom of Choice Act, which would eliminate many state imposed restrictions on abortions.

The Democratic Party is now looking to invest resources in Texas. This is in part because of Latino population growth that is fueling multi-ethnic coalitions. As The Dallas Morning News reported a few weeks ago, the Latino baby boom will have big ramifications for the lonestar state. It would be an irony to send GWB back to a bluer Texas, especially as he grows old back in Crawford.

Last week Puerto Rico elected the island’s first Republican governor in forty years, Luis Fortuno. The previous governor has been indicted for campaign finance fraud.

And finally, Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez  (D-NY) is going to seek the Chairmanship of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. When Loretta Sanchez’s office heard about this, she expressed an interest in rejoining the group (most of us here remember how Congressman “Working Joe” Baca called her a whore and how she resigned thereafter). I don’t know too much about Congresswoman Velazquez other than she comes from higher education and that she has a documented history of clinical depression. I will only hope that Velazquez is leaps and bounds above Joe Baca in legislative ability and advocacy. Maybe she could also lessen the stigma of mental health issues in our community.

Photo Credit: EFE 102108, via La Opinión

When you think about the Latino vote, most probably don’t even consider Alaska, but about 5.6% of the state’s 670,000 people are of Hispanic origin. I thought it would be interesting to see where she stands on many of the issues facing Latino voters. So when I visited OntheIssues.com, the non-partisan site for positions on political leaders, I couldn’t find much for Governor Palin. For instance, she doesn’t have a recorded opinion on foreign policy, free trade, or immigration.

We do know that Sarah Palin is socially conservative. She is pro-life, and it is reported that she doesn’t even believe that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest. That’s a pretty extreme view, considering the trauma that some women would feel having to carry a fetus to term that was conceived resulting from an act of violence. That kind of extreme pro-life view would be hard to reconcile with victim’s rights, but if you are against any and all abortions, then this might very well be ok with you. Maybe the more socially conservative Latinos will find this appealing, along with the fact that she has five children, but I tend to think that the raza are going to vote in their economic interests this time around.

Sarah Palin also worships at the Juneau Christian Center, which is affiliated with the Pentacostal Assemblies of God. A year ago, I wrote a blog post about how more Latinos were joining Pentacostal churches, so maybe Palin’s religion would appeal to yet again the more socially conservative and religious members of our community. Being Catholic seemed to increase JFK’s favor with the Hispanic community in 1960, but I would like to think that our electorate has evolved to see beyond religion so much. We are electing public servants, not pastors, preachers, or popes.

Sarah Palin is a big supporter of gun owner’s rights. She is a lifetime member of the NRA and supports D.C.’s ban on handguns. The Latino community experiences high incidences of gun violence. According to the Centers for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, via the Brady Center, we lost an average of 8 lives of Latino origin every day in 2004. During that same year, homicide was the leading cause of fire-arm related deaths for Latinos. The gun control question would be a good one to ask Sarah Palin on behalf of our community, as many of us live in urban areas instead of the vast wilderness that she comes from.

On the issue of the Iraq war, which has emerged as one of the top issues for Latinos, Palin can’t seem to articulate what she thinks other than to “respect McCain’s position on that.” However, her oldest son is about to be deployed to Iraq so I’m sure that she’ll be developing a more coherent position real soon.

I’m not too impressed with Governor Palin, as others have pointed out that if McCain wanted to pick a Republican woman who had more visibility that he would have picked Olympia Snowe, Christine Todd Whitman, or Kay Bailey Hutchison. However, I will say that Hillary Clinton supporters who were in the race for the issues will likely not be too pleased with Palin as she is on the opposite end of the political spectrum on many issues that Hillary advocated for. I certainly can’t wait to see Palin and Biden face off in the VP debates.

On Monday, Bill Richardson pledged to appoint Supreme Court justices who will uphold the precedent of Roe v. Wade. Of course, the other Democratic candidates are very pro-choice, but I applaud Richardson for speaking out and reaffirming his support of Roe. He also suggested that giving limited Social Security retirement credit to women who leave paying jobs to care for children or parents become policy. I certainly think that this would be a positive step up, considering that we American women usually get screwed financially for having babies or taking care of one’s family. Abortion rights and child care issues are especially salient for women of all ethnic groups.