2012 could be the actual beginning of the long expected Latino political awakening. Why? Perhaps sheer numbers, the reaction to the dire economic costs the community has endured, the evaporation of Latino family wealth in the housing bubble and great Mortgage scams, high unemployment and under-employment, continuously high drop out rates for high school completion of any ethnic group, the appallingly high prison population, and an alarming obesity and diabetes problem that plagues the community. All of these issues are maddening and worthy of action. Simply stated, the Latino community writ large is in crisis.

This crisis is further exacerbated by the anti-immigrant (now largely anti-Latino) social and political movement emerging throughout the country with such mean-spirited fury in Arizona, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina and many other locales signals a most distressing phenomena. The continued aggressive deportations have helped portray Latinos as a marginalized class of dark, uneducated, criminally menacing and generally undesirable people. Our discouraging lack of unity or even outrage is sadly absent amongst our fellow Hispanics. This general lack of passion suggests that a boiling point has not been reached. Hence, to expect an out-pouring of angry or concerned Latino citizenry at the polls is not in the cards.

This lack of cohesiveness readily explains President Obama’s tepid leadership on Latino issues. At times, the Democrats smack of a craven or pusillanimous approach. For instance, the Congressional Democrats, more specifically those in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, have been reluctant to challenge the President on his record deportations that have separated American born children from their parents and have occasionally caught US citizens in the ICE dragnet. As for the GOP, it manifests irrational derailment (crack up) or plain madness. An example of this is how many Republicans refuse to address the immigration problem humanely, while ratcheting up the heated rhetoric that many Latinos find offensive. Additionally, the Republican approach to Latin American foreign policy is irrational, as evidenced by the recent failure to confirm Ambassador Aponte and the continued linking of Hugo Chavez to Iran. Neither party appears to feel the need to cater or attend to our disturbing issues. It is as if our 50 million + population does not matter and may be satisfied with only a handful of swing states: Florida the biggest prize, which empowers the Cuban Americans out of proportion and the smaller states like New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada give the Hispanics some electoral heft. Overall, the Latino vote in electoral terms is largely viewed as those reduced groups of prosperous or “assimilated” Hispanics.

Leadership is another conundrum. Who and where are the leaders the community sees as following them into a foxhole in the endeavor to improve the general welfare? The current GOP primary debate is at best disquieting. It feels like Latino immigrants are readily tossed together with terrorists, Islamic extremists, drug cartel minions, and folks who are stealing America’s jobs. Being the national scapegoats begins to describe us in these difficult times. Yet, we can publish success stories of our 100 most influential Latinos because they are real. But is this the real pulse of our overall condition? We certainly should extol and applaud our achievements but never forget our less fortunate.

Perhaps 2012 will be the beginning of a more complete discussion of the Latino community. It is indeed merited in the 2012 electoral discourse. However, if one waits for our current national political leadership or presidential pretenders to address the Latino agenda, the betting is it is going to be plainly unsatisfactory. The new year could still bring a dramatic change in the effect Latinos have on the national scene. The most probable scenario for the Latino community is that if they do turn out in historic numbers is: they will be divided….neither party will be able to claim  with certainty that the Latino vote is wholly theirs. If that is the case then Latinos could be up for grabs every national election thus becoming a significant swing vote.

Right now CA Dem staff and volunteers together with local Democrats in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties are hard at work setting up the first-ever joint (state and local) Latino Voter Registration Project in the Inland Empire. This week, we’re launching the “It Gets Bluer” online and social media campaign to spread the word and let Democrats in the Inland Empire know that Democrats across California stand with them as they work to turn the tide in one of our state’s final remaining GOP strongholds.

Check out the dedicated website ItGetsBluer.com.

Christopher Guerrero, Field Director for the California Democratic Party, described it this way:

“We’ve set up shop in the Inland Empire and together with our Democratic partners in San Bernardino and Riverside we’re going to register as many Latino voters as we can between now and November 2012,” said Christopher Guerrero, Field Director for the California Democratic Party. “We are taking the fight right to the GOP’s doorstep here and in what’s considered a red (GOP) area a lot of Democrats and potential Democrats may feel like they’re the only one in the area. That’s why we’re coming together to announce to the whole community and to Democrats across the state that It Gets Bluer, and together we will work to turn the Inland Empire a bright shade of Democratic blue.”

Before initiating the project’s field component, the CDP’s field and data teams analyzed recently released Census data and past voting trends and cross-referenced the data in the Party’s voter contact file. Using geospacial tools, the results were then overlaid on detailed maps of the San Bernardino and Riverside areas to determine potential Democratic voter “hotspots” in the Inland Empire. Joint CDP and local field teams were then created in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties to register potential Democratic voters in those “hotspots.”

“We’ve got a great team in place with our lead organizers, the county parties, the local clubs and we’re even getting interest from Democrats outside of the area who are excited to see this kind of project get off the ground,” said Guerrero. “We need more volunteers and whether you’re in the area and want to help us canvass or table events with other local Democrats, or you’re outside of the area, we’ll find a way to use your help.”

To volunteer for the Inland Empire Latino Voter Registration Project, click here.

Be sure to check ItGetsBluer.com for updates on the project including stories from newly registered voters and activists in the Inland Empire and beyond.

Follow @CA_Dem on Twitter and Facebook.com/CADems for additional updates and remember: It Gets Bluer.

Fera Dayani is an online content producer with the California Democratic Party. 

By Luis Alvarado

Last Week one of the most respected Latino organization in the US, (NALEO) National Organization of Elected Officials and Appointed Officers held their annual convention in San Antonio Texas.  In 2008, NALEO invited then Presidential Candidate Sen. Barack Obama to speak, and Obama addressed NALEO promising to return and address the members if he became President.  This year President Obama was invited to attend and once again has declined.  Juan Zapata, President of the Education Fund of NALEO said on Univision’s show  “Al Punto con Jorge Ramos” that the first year he did not show was understandable, the second year was also understood and now on the third year his absence is clearly disrespectful.

The media picked up the tensions between NALEO and Obama, and soon there was media frenzy.  I wanted to see how the Spanish-Speaking media were characterizing this riff, so I Google’d “Obama+NALEO” and found over 350 articles under the News tab.  Surprisingly very few Spanish-speaking articles were written on the story.  ImpreMedia, which claims to be the leading Hispanic News and Information Company in the U.S. in Online and Print, did not write on the riff at NALEO, they just talked about the importance of the Latino vote.  Not a peep on the repeated request to address the convention.

As the 2012 election enters into full swing, there is no question that Spanish-speaking media will once again play a large roll in how candidates communicate with the Latino voter, Latinos will be heavily courted and campaigns will spend fortunes to win their vote.  During the 2008 Presidential race, there was a love fest between the media and Obama’s presidential campaign, even more evident with the Spanish-speaking media, which has demonstrated great resistance to calling the President out on his record or lack of participation with the Latino Community.  Hence why I conclude the subject did not receive any ink on any of the ImpreMedia periodicals.

Another motive to understand this behavior is that of economics.  On the last election cycle unions and Democratic candidates spent millions of dollars attacking Republicans and painting them as anti-Latinos, thus enraging Latinos in hopes of punishing Republicans and raising voter turnout.  Feeding a captive audience with the anti-Latino strategy has propelled Democrats to public offices in heavy Latino districts as well as increased profits to Spanish-speaking media corporations.  Introducing an anti-Latino message against Obama dilutes the formula and both Democrats and Spanish-speaking media lose out.  In the end, ImpreMedia‘s silence on the main issues that mater for Latinos to understand and participate in the political process is deafeningly silent, my hope is that Latinos soon learn to use new information media and join mainstream America in how they select their candidates.

“”The Republicans, by electing three national Latino leaders, have really challenged the Democratic Party,” said former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, until recently one of the highest-ranking Latino Democrats in the country.

“Democrats have to recruit more Latino candidates and they have to start siding with Latinos on redistricting and other issues,” Richardson said, “because many Latinos perceive that the party doesn’t care enough about electing more Hispanic officials.”

Richardson’s concerns were echoed by Latino lawmakers, political activists and campaign strategists across the country. To them, the Democratic Party — while benefitting from a surge in Latino votes — has, in particular, not done enough to help Latino candidates move from city council, legislative and congressional seats to the party’s highest elected offices.”

While many take issue with the GOP stance on issues like immigration, defense spending, Medicare, and more, you have to admit that the Republicans do a great job of finding photogenic and compelling Latino people to run for office. But do note that Martinez and Sandoval failed to win the a majority of the Latino vote in New Mexico and in Nevada and that Marco Rubio lost the non-Cuban Latino vote in Florida.

Although the majority of Latinos do lean Democratic, the Latino vote is still up for grabs with some Latino Democrats becoming disillusioned with the party, especially those who were expecting quicker action on the immigration issue. While the GOP seems to become more extreme on immigration and other issues, it’s time to Latinos to start to think beyond partisanship. A case could be made that both parties would have to more overtly court the community if more of us were registered as “declined to state” or independent.

And finally, the Democrats would be wise to cultivate Latino candidates of a higher caliber because the GOP has already learned how to do it in three high profile states in the last election cycle. When an organization is successful in achieving something, they are better poised to improve upon that success in the future.

For those who have avoided a computer for the past few weeks, President Obama’s social media team is gearing up for his 2012 run with his ‘Are You In?’ campaign on Facebook. Essentially, one clicks that they’re “in”, gets bombarded with options to help with the campaign, and it’s off to the races. The only problem is that not everyone is “in.” If anything, Latinos are growing increasingly skeptical of President Obama’s ability to support our community beyond a White House Latin Music Night. As a close friend of mine stated, “I’m NOT in. Obama has my vote, no doubt. But I’m still not sure if he has my money or time. What happened to Immigration Reform? On that note, what the hell happened to the DREAM Act?” His point is valid, and allows us to dispense with the elephant in the room: President Obama has yet to deliver substance on the rhetoric he employed to secure the Latino vote. But more importantly, my friend’s comment embodies the demand that Obama be the “change” president for all disenfranchised groups.

When President Obama was elected, he became more than just the president. Every minority demographic and constituency who supported him felt he was the one to address their issues, and subsequently felt their needs warranted top priority in the Oval Office. Environmentalists saw him as the one to break our dependence on oil, the LGBT community saw him as the first glimmer of hope since Harvey Milk, education advocates felt he would fix NCLB, everyone thought he would end the wars, and the list is endless. I was guilty of this as well, feeling my time and money spent for Obama justified my demand he provide immigration reform, pass the DREAM Act, and end the Cuban embargo. It was incredibly misguided for people to think he would do everything for everyone in those first two years, especially since we didn’t know how eight years under Bubbles the Clown would derail “Change We Can Believe In.”

Simply, no one could have foreseen how the healthcare debate was going to turn into the actual Mayweather-Pacquiao fight, or how the economy was going to put nearly all American policy progress on hold. And of course, no one could have predicted a Republican Party platform of ‘Do absolutely nothing until Obama is out of Office.’ Even as we see a rebounding economy and know we’re much better off under Obama than we would have been under McCain, hardly anyone is happy. The tone of compromise and bi-partisanship looks like weakness, and has caused previous Obama season ticket holders to cancel their subscriptions. They’re still fans, just not willing to pay top dollar for an underperforming product. Indeed, it’s mind boggling to know that the Obama administration botched a prime opportunity to galvanize voters after Arizona kicked off a domino effect that showed the Republican Party’s true feelings towards Latinos. Even if Arizona is an outlier in the greater immigration debate, the reality is we’ve seen the American auto industry and LGBT community get more “change” than we have. Thus, I don’t blame my friend for hesitating to be “in” because Obama’s performance on Latino issues has been subpar at best.

This inaction becomes symbolic because it makes the Latino vote one in which we’ll essentially be choosing between the lesser of two evils. Republicans shouldn’t win the Latino vote by denying access to education for undocumented yet deserving students, and supporting the legalization of racial profiling. However, does that mean a Democrat should win simply because he doesn’t endorse such a platform? Ultimately, Obama wins the Latino vote because the alternative is reminiscent of some of the governments Latinos have fled their home countries from. Therefore, an Obama victory of the Latino vote should not be celebrated by any means, because it just means we will have picked the person who scares us less. If that’s the case, then why be “in”? For me, the answer is simple.

President Obama may not have delivered on what he promised, but he has set the stage to do so. We can’t have comprehensive immigration reform without healthcare reform, which took too long because people don’t have a consensus on healthcare as a right or a privilege. Then there’s the DREAM Act, which should have been passed, but wasn’t because Washington hasn’t found a way to sell it. And by sell it I mean people haven’t gotten the teacher’s unions to buy into it. It doesn’t take a viewing of Waiting for Superman to show us who is calling the shots educationally, meaning our pressure for the DREAM Act needs to start with the unions, not Washington. Combined with the fact President Obama inherited a three ring circus, we just can’t measure his success on two years that were dedicated to avoiding a depression and dealing with a political environment that is starting to mirror the drama of High School. Nor can we measure his success on catering to our needs over those of others, because he unintentionally became the “change” president for all marginalized groups.

Bottom line, we all think President Obama needs to satisfy our agenda now, even though history tells us he won’t. We also know his being reelected doesn’t guarantee that our issues are addressed, especially if Congress stays divided. But what we should also know is that reelection guarantees eight years of work towards a progressive policy agenda that affects all Americans, and will ultimately be shaped by Latinos in the coming decades. To ensure this happens, we need to be “in” and do more than just vote. The alternative of choosing a party comprised of Arizona-supporters, not voting, or casting a vote for independent candidates who will never win leaves too much to chance. Regrettably, what my friend said is probably the norm for a good number of Latino voters. Obama has their vote, but probably won’t have their time, money, or energy like he did the last time. I just hope that changes, because not being “in” is too risky.

Matthew Stieglitz received his BA in Communication from the University of Delaware. He is currently a 2011 Master of Public Administration candidate at Cornell University concentrating in Government, Politics, & Policy Studies. After receiving his MPA, Matthew will attend law school in order to merge his public affairs background with a legal education to most effectively advocate for Latinos.

The Tea Party stems from the following : this so-called conservative resistance is plainly white Americans who borrow from several historical trends like the Boston Tea Party of the 1770s, but perhaps more importantly from the Know-Nothing Movement of the 19th century. But today add to the equation the reality that traditional White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) along with their close cousins the Scots-Irish feel under siege. In the aftermath of the Great Depression and WWII, they began to feel their position erode: ethnic minorities like the Irish Catholics, Italians and the Jewish community secured a firm and effective socio-economic and political status equal to the WASPs. Thus, the Anglo-Saxon narrative began to crumble: the America of Currier and Ives and Saturday Evening Post was increasingly a nostalgia trip.

When JFK won in 1960, the rise of white ethnic Catholics increased. Moreover, the Civil Rights movement in the early 60s unleashed a ‘people of color’ activism: Blacks primarily as well as Latinos, Native Americans and Asians, who sought to gain more recognition and fair treatment. Subsequently, the murders of JFK, RFK and MLK along with the Watergate Scandal and the military fiasco (retreat) in Vietnam profoundly questioned American ‘exceptionalism’. The American traditional power elite was shell shocked. This so-called exceptionalism had been a White Anglo-Saxon rich and a poor Scot-Irish narrative, which depicted these so-called original Americans as stewards of the American experience. For over 175 years, these inheritors of this narrative have extolled the American way of life and suddenly in the late 1950s and through the 60s, they began to grow wary of a central federal government that promoted or protected this perceived erosion of exceptionalism. This included: urban riots, busing, affirmative action, integration, civil rights, feminism, pro-choice, gay rights, environmentalism, rise in crime, anti-war protests, anti-poverty programs, welfare, gun control, immigration and growing narcotics use. These were all demonized and perceived as threats to the American narrative.

One result was the increasing awareness of the diluting of the traditional core WASP position in American society. The feeling among this dominant group was of being challenged by non-American cultural threats like the increased use of the Spanish language and the increasing migration of ‘non-whites’ (Latinos, Asians and Muslims) into the US. The most defining event was the passage of the Public Accommodations portion of the Civil Rights Act under President Lyndon Johnson which was even more disturbing to this first among equals group. President Johnson presciently noted at the time that this legislation created a White stampede out of the Democratic party. The South, the Mid-west and the Mountain states as many of the suburbs of the Northeast and the West Coast became solidly Republican. The GOP was no longer the Episcopalian Church at prayer. Its mild-mannered conservative demeanor was pushed aside by the arrival of poor and middle class southern whites and white ethnics (Reagan Democrats) along with other beleaguered whites. These included the affluent or middle class and poor religious, rural and laboring whites and non-WASPs. Politically they referred to themselves as “Middle America.”

This embattled group of mostly European-Americans are not unlike formerly powerful minorities around the world who have found themselves undone by unsettling demographic realignment and a radicalized, shrinking political base. True, in the short term everything is in their favor. However, in the mid to long term, the numbers and resulting politics spell their decline. See the Africkaners. They fell prey initially to political isolation, followed by marginalization and even repudiation on the world stage.

Additionally, the abortion debate mobilized the Catholic Church as well as the more fundamental religious sects and many of their faithful (mostly former Democrats) now found solace in the GOP. Hence, Civil Rights and abortion were the two defining ‘wedge’ issues that attracted the vast majority of whites into the GOP fold.This new ‘emerging majority’ as the Nixonites labeled them began to promote the GOP as the God-fearing party of traditional ‘winners’ and not the Democratic party of ‘losers’: non-whites, the underdogs, the poor, the gays, the minority poor, the egg-head intellectuals and artists, and unions. Hence, this spawned culture wars which increased class distrust. Moreover, patriotic friction ensued with the GOP hiding behind American soldiers, defending the second amendment and attacking the ‘un-American’ position of these ‘new threats’ to traditional America. And the Democrats almost disoriented rallied around (or hid behind) the poor, feminists, victimized groups, unions, gays, environmentalists, entertainment industry, anti-war protesters, and other aggrieved minorities.

Eventually, political reality caught up with both parties. The GOP’s automatic support of virtually any military expenditure or war created enormous cost. This cost has been mostly ignored by the cowed Democrats. At the same time, the GOP clamored continuously for reducing the tax burden and deregulating the economy while the Democrats readily supported a vast array of costly social programs and set asides. Additionally, the response to the 9/11 terrorist act increased massive federal spending as did the grotesquely expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. With a deregulated (predatory) financial sector came the economic bust in 2008 on top of an already ailing economy. This became the Great Recession of 2008 with increasingly widespread unemployment. The balanced budget of the Clinton years was no longer an economic virtue. The US economy no longer ‘unfolded’. It unraveled. The spending spree continues by both political parties, but it seems to have slowed down. The challenge is that discretionary spending is virtually non-existent in the budget. Everything seems to be recurring or fixed entitlement programs. Hence, the Tea Party phenomenon appeared within the GOP in 2010.

At first glance, the Tea Party is a relatively disorganized movement, but it is plainly spurred on by the horrific deficit spending, the debt growth, and the direction of the GOP: fiscally in disarray. It also seeks to neutralize the Democrats. Upon closer examination, it consists mostly of the white traditional nostalgic inheritors of the American narrative who seek to thwart the central (federal) government from empowering those ‘unnecessary’ recipients and threats. Thus, their grand design or scheme is to eliminate the funding for this ‘monstrous’ government apparatus. Hence, in short, one can readily detect the panic among the deteriorating traditional class of ‘first real’ Americans and their determination to make suspects of all perceived threatening groups (ie. non-whites) and defend the local government structure which preserves the American narrative. Borrowing its name from an American revolutionary event protesting Britain’s unfair taxation, the Tea Partiers’ tactics often resemble the ‘Know-nothings‘ from yester-year. They now appear to be creating serious dissension within the traditional GOP coalition. Security Republicans fear cuts in the defense establishment. Social conservatives want more religious values reflected in government and legislation. The Tea Party members at first glance may come across as fiscal Republicans, but there lurks a threatening anarchic element among the activists. ‘Shut the government down if necessary: who needs it?’ seems to be their motto. They do not seem to be concerned with the Latino or the poor people’s plight in economic terms nor do they seek a solution or comprehensive reform of immigration. In fact, if a serious consideration of immigration reform does emerge, the enormous cost involved in processing 12 million undocumented will certainly antagonize and re-energize the Tea Party. As the 2012 Presidential elections draw closer, these social, fiscal and security conservatives will coalesce but be pulled and tugged in different directions. Not any current GOP hopeful is able to bring them together cohesively. But then again, as always, the whole national economic, security and social discussion in general US elections revolve around capturing or winning this white nostalgic Middle America vote. Many observers might be tempted to say that this formerly governing class of whites find itself in a political death throe. Close examination of this group’s electoral behavior and the political appeals to them reveal that these so-called Tea Partiers together with the regular white coalition are the real swing vote in the US…..not African-Americans and certainly not Latinos…for now!

“This weekend’s vote on the DREAM Act was a disappointment. Republicans voted against a measure to give folks who are American in everything but their legal status an opportunity through military service or education.

I’ll be blunt: this vote failed because a group of Republicans stood with their party, instead of their principles.

Senator John McCain cosponsored the DREAM Act in 2003, 2005, and 2007. But this weekend, he voted against it.

Senator Chuck Grassley cosponsored the DREAM Act in 2003 — and voted against it this weekend.

Neither of them were alone — there are five Republican senators who have voted for the DREAM Act in the past decade, but failed to support it on Saturday.

We need to send a clear message to the Republicans that none of us are going away — that we will continue to fight. That’s why we’re asking people who support the DREAM Act to call the GOP leaders and express their disappointment — and to tell them to stop playing politics with immigration reform.

Call Representative Boehner at (202) 225-6205 and Senator McConnell at (202) 224-2541 today.

When President Obama was in the Senate, he was a cosponsor of the DREAM Act. It remains a major priority for him today.

And OFA supporters like you — along with advocates across the country — have done the important organizing work in our communities to build support for this crucial measure.

But the fight ahead of us will be difficult.

Prominent Republicans have come out against birthright citizenship, fought for English-only laws, and generally moved their party toward greater levels of extremism.

With the House under Republican control in the next Congress, we need to make it clear that we will stand strong for an America built on hard work, fairness, and equality — not one ruled by xenophobia and fear.

This fight isn’t over — and when it comes up in the next Congress, we need to be on the record saying that Republicans can’t hold reform hostage to political games.

Let’s start by telling that to the Republican leaders today. Will you call Representative Boehner at (202) 225-6205 and Senator McConnell at (202) 224-2541?

Thanks for fighting,

Mitch

Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America”

Obviously, these paid hacks are pointing fingers directly at the GOP Senators, but let’s remember that three Republicans voted in favor of DREAM, while five Democrats voted against it. Those five Democratic senators, had they voted in the affirmative, would have given the DREAM Act the 60 votes needed to proceed to debate. So the blame can go to both parties, but it is especially stinging for the Democrats since so much has been made about the possibility of comprehensive immigration reform happening in the current administration.

I sense that beyond sending e-mails to the Democratic Party faithful that the Democrats start doing some soul searching. It’s one thing to call Representative Boehner and Senator McConnell and beg that they keep immigration reform on the radar in the next congress, but it’s another matter entirely to take stock of the Democratic Party and identify where some of its members have acted in an obstructionist fashion as well.

And beyond the two party system, Latinos need to start examining their issue organization leadership. Are we best represented by NCLR or LULAC and its leaders? Could they have been more vocal in speaking out about the immigration conundrum and/or could they have offered more support to the DREAMers? Unless strategies change or evolve, it is going to look like these organizations are disconnected from the masses they purport to represent, especially if they don’t deliver a victory at some point on the immigration issue.

So while Democratic establishment and many beltway organizations will point fingers at the Republicans, DREAM Activists will keep it real. Check out this audio from NPR’s Talk of the Nation from Today with Flavia de la Fuente. Hat tip to Gustavo Arellano of the OC Weekly.

There will be more debriefing and information available in the coming days about what the consequences of this vote are, but right now, I know that many DREAM Activists and their allies are going to continue mobilizing and organizing to hold those who stand in the way of this small measure of relief for the immigrant community accountable. On the positive side, a majority of Senators were in favor of DREAM and in the House as we saw last week, a majority of congressional representatives voted in favor of it as well. Today in the Senate, 60 votes were needed to proceed forward. If all of the Democrats in the Senate who voted no today had voted in the affirmative, the dreams would have moved ahead.

When the 112th Congress convenes on January 3, 2011, eight Latino Republicans will join the eighteen Latino Democrats on Capitol Hill. Raul Labrador, the first Latino Congressman elected from the State of Idaho, Jaime Herrera, the first Latina Congresswoman elected from the State of Washington, and newly elected Bill Flores from the State of Texas, in the House of Representatives, and Marco Rubio from the State of Florida in the Senate, will work to rebrand the GOP inside the beltway. Fresh from hard won campaign victories, Brian Sandoval, the first Latino elected Governor of Nevada, and Susana Martinez, the first Latina elected Governor of New Mexico, both also Republicans, will find themselves placed on the fast track to starring roles in 2012.

According to Latino Decisions, and Pew Hispanic, with the exception of Rubio, none of these Latinos candidates won the majority of the Latino vote. Rubio carried 55% of Latinos who cast ballots—a number that can be unpacked into two very different statistics: 78% of Cuban-Americans backed Rubio, only 40% of all other Latinos in Florida felt compelled to vote for him. And yet, the bottom line is that nearly one-third of the Latinos in Congress, and these two Latino Swing State Governors, will be members of a political party whose National Convention Platform on immigration and the rule of law reads as follows:

“In an age of terrorism, drug cartels, and criminal gangs, allowing millions of unidentified persons to enter and remain in this country poses grave risks to the sovereignty of the United States and the security of its people… The rule of law means guaranteeing to law enforcement the tools and coordination to deport criminal aliens without delay—and correcting court decisions that have made deportation so difficult. It means enforcing the law against those who overstay their visas, rather than letting millions flout the generosity that gave them temporary entry. It means imposing maximum penalties on those who smuggle illegal aliens into the US… real consequences, including the denial of federal funds, for self-described sanctuary cities… It does not mean driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, nor does it mean that states should be allowed to flout the federal law barring them from giving in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens, nor does it mean that illegal aliens should receive social security benefits, or other public benefits… We oppose amnesty. The rule of law suffers if government policies encourage or reward illegal activity. The American people’s rejection of en masse legalizations is especially appropriate given the federal government’s past failures to enforce the law.”

Given the fact that the plurality of conservative incumbents and Grand Old Party faithful throughout the American political landscape credit the rise of the Tea Party with the electoral victories that led to Republican control of the House of Representatives and the gain of 680 State Legislature seats—elected offices that will allow unilateral control in the process of drawing boundaries for 190 Congressional Districts across the USA—it is unlikely that the rise of Latino Republicans to levels of prominence in the Party, will lead to less Draconian measures. On the contrary, anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy proposals will run rampant like wildfire. Figures pouring kerosene will likely include Kentucky’s Rand Paul, Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey, Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson, Utah’s Mike Lee, and Massachusetts’ Scott Brown in the Senate, all of whom publicly thanked Tea Party activists for their volunteer efforts and financial contributions, heaping praise on the Tea Party’s “grassroots leadership,” despite endless evidence of behind-the-curtain, grasstops manipulation by front groups funded by the billionaire Koch brothers.

The first elephant in the room for Latinos who are concerned about keeping families together, and preserving the human dignity and rights of all immigrants is that the rise of Latino Republicans might just mean worse outcomes for Latino immigrants and their families. There are 6.6 million families in which a head of household and/or spouse migrated without authorization. 3.1 million American-born children live in households headed by undocumented immigrants. These mixed-status families live in constant danger of being torn apart under existing law. In order to stay with their family members, American citizens—those born and raised in the United States—are forced to relocate to a foreign country they have never known, because current immigration policies allow them no other viable option. What’s worse, these statistics only include mixed-status families that include citizens, they do not take into account mixed-status families comprised of households where undocumented migrants live with Permanent Residents, those with work permits, and foreign-born students invited to enroll in American academic institutions or professional development programs. According to Frank Sharry of America’s Voice, two-thirds of all mixed-status families, including those whose members belong to subpopulations just named, have been in the US for ten years or more.

This reality of a GOP, whose rhetoric and actions are hostile to migrants, is not just one impacting the viability of Comprehensive Immigration Reform proposals, and the chances of vital, urgent legislation such as the DREAM Act of receiving an up or down vote in 2011, if they fail to make it to the floor during the “lame duck” session of Congress convening during the brief window of time between now and the holiday season. This reality is one so dire that it even involves Latinos in powerful positions openly waging a war on immigrants in the most vulnerable positions. If you don’t believe this, please take a moment to look up newly elected Congressman Allen West’s Chief of Staff, Spanish-speaking Latina, Joyce Kaufman, on the search engine of your choosing. The Huffington Post highlights her saying, “We should hang you [illegal immigrants] and send your body back to where you came from, and your family should pay for it.” That’s just the tip of the iceberg. In fact, the wealth of egregious and incendiary material Kaufman is responsible for found on YouTube alone is too extensive to succinctly summarize.

Democrats had a nearly two-to-one advantage (64% versus 34%) over Republicans in 2010 House races among Latino voters. Moreover, with the exception of Florida, Democratic candidates won the Latino vote in all contests for which exit poll data exists. In Colorado, Tom Tancredo, the former Republican Congressman known for his especially polarizing immigration stance, joined the Governor’s race against Denver Mayor, Democrat John Hickenlooper. But Hickenlooper and Democratic Senate candidate Michael Bennett won the Latino vote by wide margins. They owe their victory to the electoral performance of low to mid propensity Latino voters mobilized via Get Out The Vote campaigns effectuated online by groups like Cuéntame, and on the ground by groups like Mi Familia Vota. In Arizona, although Democrat Terry Goddard lost the overall race to Republican Jan Brewer, he received 71% of the Latino vote. Latinos are solely responsible for saving Congressman Raul Grijalva from early retirement. And the fact that California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer won 65% of the Latino vote, California Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown won 64% of the Latino vote, and Nevada Democratic Senator Harry Reid won 68% of the Latino vote, serves to explain their victories as well. Latinos represented 8% of all voters in 2010, the same share as they did in 2006 when Democrats “took back” Congress from Republican control. In 2006, 69% of Latinos voted for Democratic candidates in Congressional district races, 30% voted for Republicans. In 2008, 67% of Latinos voted for Democrat Barack Obama, 31% cast ballots for Republican John McCain. More than 19 million Latinos were eligible to vote in the 2010 Midterms, more than at any other time—9% of all eligible voters nationwide in 2010 were Latinos, up from 8.6% in 2006.

Print press pundits and talking heads on cable news have largely focused their attention on the role Arizona’s SB 1070 racial profiling legislation played in solidifying Latino support for Democratic candidates in 2010. An Univision-AP poll published in May demonstrated that 67% of Latinos vehemently opposed the bill. Republican Governor Jan Brewer who signed it into law, and Republican State Senator Russell Pearce who wrote it, became symbols of GOP animus against the Latino community—proponents of racial profiling disguised as “reasonable suspicion,” enemies of Ethnic Studies courses in Arizona’s universities, and proponents of arbitrarily policing the “accents” of K-12 teachers, including monolingual English-speaking Latinos who, didn’t “sound American.” Pearce was named head of the State Senate despite his direct and undeniable connections to white supremacists; in spite of his pledge to defy the 14th Amendment, and cancel automatic citizenship for children born to undocumented mothers. Brewer won reelection despite incontrovertible evidence that she and 30 of SB 1070’s 36 cosponsors received campaign contributions from the for-profit prison industry that co-authored the bill and lobbied legislators to pass it. Make no mistake about it, SB 1070, was a vicious attack on Latinos without an ounce of redemption. The billboard Cuéntame erected in Phoenix reading “Get your papers out: Racial profiling ahead,” was spot on.

And yet, the second elephant in the room is that Latinos who are concerned about keeping families together, and preserving the human dignity and rights of all immigrants have not been rewarded for their overwhelming support of Democratic candidates. Instead of pursuing filibuster-proof Comprehensive Immigration Reform, and vital, urgent legislation such as the DREAM Act with the same all-encompassing zeal it employed in pursuit of Health Insurance Reform, this White House has instead focused on stopping undocumented immigrants from entering the United States and removing undocumented residents already in residence here. The idea that the Obama Administration is unquestionably pro-immigrant is erroneous. Claims made by Republicans, the Tea Party faithful, talk radio hosts, cable news personalities, conservative periodicals, and right-wing bloggers that the Obama Administration has neglected and underfunded border enforcement, in order to gain approval from the pro-amnesty crowd, are bold-faced lies:

The Obama Administration has thrown more drones and security personnel at the border than ever before. It made the E-Verify system, used to determine the immigration status of any part-time or fulltime employee, mandatory for all companies seeking federal contracts. It extended two aggressive enforcement programs: “Secure Communities,” making it mandatory for police to forward the identifying information of anyone they arrest to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and every county along the Southwest border, and “Operation Streamline,” allowing judges to engage in mass sentencing of immigrants caught crossing the border without authorization, instead of treating each migrant as an individual case. And instead of simply relying on Bush-era worksite raids, ICE under this White House has promoted a policy of “Silent Raids,” forcing employers to take action against workers whose Social Security number does not match up with a federal database. In the first half of the decade, (between 2000 and 2005) an average of 850,000 per year entered the US without authorization, by the end of 2009, that number had been reduced by nearly two-thirds, to 300,000. According to Douglas Massey, a Princeton University professor whose research focuses on migration, “Life’s gotten pretty miserable for immigrants in the United States,” noting that even for legal immigrants, whether or not they have relatives who are undocumented, the increased scrutiny has been highly stressful. ICE has deported more undocumented immigrants per year under the administration of President Barack Obama than under that of his predecessor, George W. Bush. ICE will deport more than 400,000 people this year alone, 25% more than the Bush Administration deported in 2007. ICE Director, John Morton, stated unequivocally that 400,000 deportations per year represent the absolute maximum number the processing, detention and immigration court system can handle.

In looking ahead to the role the Latino Vote will likely play in Presidential campaign of 2012, it is important for both Democrats and Republicans to reflect upon what occurred on November 2, 2010 in the Swing State of Nevada: 12% of registered voters in Nevada were Latino. Yet Latinos made up 16% of voters taking part in this election, a 13% increase since the last midterm. In the vast majority of states, the deadline to register to vote for this election was during the first week of October. By the time Pew Hispanic’s poll became public on October 5, declaring that 50% of Latino registered voters were planning on skipping out on the midterm election, the voter registration deadline had passed most everywhere. But not in Nevada: Thousands and thousands of voters registered in Nevada before the October 12 deadline thanks to Cuéntame’s online efforts, and a ground game executed by groups like the Hispanic Institute that registered 10,223 Latino voters in Clark County alone. 50% of Latino voters took advantage of early voting opportunities in Nevada, thus making shorter Election Day lines at polling places possible, and the likelihood of rapid responses to the vast majority of election protection issues probable. Nevada Latino voters rejected racist, anti-immigrant, anti-Latino political messages delivered by non-Hispanic whites. Nevada Latino voters rejected campaigns championing abstention from political participation, offered by Hispanic political strategists who wrongly believed Latinos could be manipulated by hypocrites, wolves in sheep’s clothing, and convinced to stay home on the basis of frustration with one political issue alone. Nevada Latino voters showed up in record numbers, and outperformed other voters when it counted.

Cuéntame and its partners will not allow the GOP to scapegoat Latinos, and use members of our community as political punching bags in their effort to win control of the White House in 2012. Regardless of whether or not the Republicans delivering the blows have Hispanic surnames, or Latino heritage. By the same token, we will not simply take Democrats at their word. While immigration is not the only issue that matters to Latinos, and it would be foolish to ignore the fact that millions of Latinos will benefit from policies championed by this White House, the Obama Administration’s reluctance to go all-in on legislative proposals such as the DREAM Act, that once boasted bipartisan support, has eroded the credibility and trust he earned on the campaign trail. Candidate Obama’s pledge to mend the broken immigration system stands in sharp contrast to President Obama’s hyper border enforcement and mass deportation policies.

In order to hold both Democratic and Republican feet to the fire, and win the war currently being waged on immigrants—the most vulnerable members of our community—we need to legal residents who are eligible to begin the process of naturalization, and those who are citizens to register to vote long before 2012: 52,000 Latino youth turn 18 every month. 8.5 million Latinos in Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Florida, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Texas alone, are already eligible to vote, but have yet to register. We have the power to more than double the Latino Vote by 2050. By introducing new voices into the political process, we will never again find ourselves forced to choose between candidates who demonize us with their rhetoric while demoralizing us with their policies, and those who make bold pronouncements while dragging their feet on our priorities until the final weeks before Election Day.

Moreover, the upcoming release of the 2010 census will not provide sufficient clarity but probably provoke a debate on the accuracy of the Latino population numbers and the statistical definitions of the overall Latino community. Also, the changing political landscape in Washington and the state houses bodes a tough slog ahead. Plainly, the Latino community’s challenges persist and often appear to become even more muddled. The apparent political meltdown of the Obama Administration suggests an even more difficult time for the traditional Latino Democratic Party consensus. They are coming up empty-handed by and large. The GOP also faces a real dilemma with its feverish anti-immigrant emerging majority and its pragmatic need to continue to attract Latinos beyond the social conservative mantra.

This past election Latino GOP candidates achieved better results than their Democratic counterparts. As the political passing of Democrat Governor Bill Richardson occurred, with the end of his tenure, there were no Latino Democrats running for governor in any of the 50 states, yet, Republican Latino candidates for Governors were elected in Nevada (Brian Sandoval) and in New Mexico (Susana Martinez).  Three or two new Mexican-American GOP Congressmen (depending on whether Jaime Herrera of Washington State considers herself Latina) were elected. Texas chose two of these newly elected legislators: Kiko Canseco and Bill Flores. Additionally, in Idaho, another Republican Raul Labrador was elected to Congress; Labrador is Puerto Rican. The GOP also sent three Florida Cuban Americans to Congress, two were re-elected (Ileana Ross-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz Balart) and one was newly elected (David Rivera). While Marco Rubio, the newly elected GOP Senator from Florida, restored the number of Cuban-Americans in the US Senate (2), after Mel Martinez’ departure; Senator Bob Menendez is the only Latino (Cuban-American) Democrat in the Senate. While two Democrat Latino congressmen from Texas lost their seats (both Mexican-American) Solomon Ortiz and Ciro Rodriguez; three Democrat Puerto Ricans Congressmen were re-elected (Serrano, Velazquez and Gutierrez). Let’s not forget that Mexican-American Democrat Ken Salazar of Colorado left the Senate in 2009 to become President Obama’s Secretary of Interior and was replaced by a non Latino. At the same time, Democrat Congresswoman Hilda Solis left the House of Representatives to become Secretary of Labor and saw her seat also go to a non-Latino.  The sum of all these musical chairs further suggests that neither party has nor will have, any time soon, a solid in-run into the Latino community.

While the Democratic Party still appears to garner more Latino support over all, the question is whether this may hold solidly in the out years. The growing willingness of Latinos to vote for either party makes them most attractive to court since this vote will increasingly be ‘up for grabs’. But for the GOP to reap the benefits of this voting population, it will have to become more welcoming to the Latinos. Lately we have seen some GOP leaders seeking to augment their outreach to Latinos by restating their outlook on issues such as immigration reform. For example, Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House, has made an about face. Though historically he was Tea Party-ish on immigration, he is now openly seeking to position himself favorably with the Latino community by calling for the legalization of all workers residing in the country.

As the GOP begins to position itself for the 2012 presidential elections, we may yet see Jeb Bush (President George W. Bush’s brother) emerge as the GOP’s leading candidate who can deliver the Latino vote, especially Cuban Americans, the more conservative segment of the Latino community. Jeb is Roman Catholic, has a Latina (Mexican) wife, speaks fluent Spanish and has a solid base among both Florida and Texas Latino Republicans. Though his dynastic family name could still be an obstacle, given the current lack of potential candidates, the Bush name still could re-emerge. The biggest impediment for Latinos to vote solidly GOP is the troubling tenor or anti-immigrant tone among many of the rank and file members and some extreme sectors of its leadership.

The most immediate challenge to the Hispanic/Latino community is the conduct in addressing the undocumented or illegal conundrum: how do you satisfactorily resolve the status of over ten million undocumented people? The Latino community faces a formidable challenge in making the case for amnesty. An expanded Cuban Adjustment Act is not in the cards for the rest of the undocumented Latino immigrants. Getting to the front of the line is politically unacceptable. Plainly, politically the conditions for a reasonable and just resolution are distant. Especially when while the economic conditions are bleak or at best uncertain the mantra from some quarters seems to be: blame the illegals.

Immigration, educational achievement and equal economic opportunity are the most important and pressing issues on the Latino agenda. They remain unresolved or unmitigated. The Latino socio-economic indicators reveal a huge underclass in the making. Though, some progress is also apparent: more college graduates and an increasing middle class; the vast influx of immigrants in the last three decades has raised the numbers in poverty.  Educational statistics show a startling under-achievement among Latinos. Health and income conditions among Latinos are most unsettling. They continue to confront the Latino community. Most disturbingly the election of the first Black-American to the Presidency has sadly unearthed and aroused many racist sentiments in the body politic. Obama inherited two costly undeclared wars, the deepest recession since the Great Depression, a run-away debt crisis, the clear lack of vision among the leadership in Congress, a fractious body politic, a lame press, a growing income inequity, a withering national infrastructure, an underfunded and weakened educational system and a shrill tax sharing burden debate. The GOP take over of the House of Representatives will further hinder the President’s range of action. This is a daunting scenario. Obama is now weakened and is in no position to take up the Latino agenda. In sum, the national Latino leadership should be readying itself for a monumental struggle in addressing the key issues confronting the community. Moreover, the bruising political effort to attain some rational discussion and resolution of the tangled issue of immigration will not be swift. Success or failure will serve test the Latinos’ ability to manage formidable issues.

Lastly, Latinos seem to be totally disengaged from the global agenda. When a Latino soldier’s body is brought back home from war seems to be only occasion we discuss the war and the security challenges facing the country. Security policy is virtually absent from the Latino national agenda. Hence, it seems almost premature to discuss the Latino participation in globalization or its engagement in foreign policy and trade. The way forward is indeed a true challenge.

Photo Credits: NV Governor-elect Brian Sandoval, taken from his campaign’s Facebook page, and NM Governor-elect Susana Martinez, campaign website photo