Note: A federal judge just blocked parts of Arizona’s SB 1070 this morning. You can read more about that here. SB 1070 was scheduled to go into effect as passed tomorrow.

Tomorrow the most anti-immigrant state law will go into effect in Arizona. While the federal government via the Department of Justice has filed a brief injunction to attempt to stop the law from going into effect, there’s no sign that Arizona will have a change of heart. Recently, Chris Rock was on The View and he was asked about Arizona and SB 1070.  Rock responded, “I feel bad for the Mexicans. I think they should just leave.. They don’t want you there. Blacks did in South Carolina.”

While there have been some reports of Latino immigrants leaving the Grand Canyon State, the majority have not. Recently, I asked some friends from Arizona if Latinos are leaving and they noted that while some families have left, many have stayed put. The reason? Economics. The economic situation is dire. Many immigrants have bought homes, are barely surviving, and simply don’t have the means to get up and go. While thousands have departed the state, tens of thousands simply cannot afford to. This reminds me of when former California GOP Governor Pete Wilson later recanted to a close friend why Latinos hated him so much, and Wilson was told, “you managed, via Proposition 187, to anger not just Latino immigrants but Latinos in general.”

A country stolen by trickery of the natives and bartered with senior Mexican military officials for 1/3 of Mexico, built and strengthened by immigrants (Mexicans, Irish, Italian, Polish, etc) has taken an isolationist view in regards to immigration. There is a belief in this country that immigrants rob from the United States. This couldn’t be further from the truth. What we need to remain a 21st century leader is to be open and transparent, much like we were in the 19th and 20th century. When our nation was more open and welcoming of immigrants, we created the economic engine that made our country the envy of the world. The US has been losing some ground in technology to countries abroad; do we, as Americans, really want to import every food we eat? Our strawberries, tomatoes, lettuce, oranges and beef? How many volunteers have raised their hands to pick the crops on American fields? Stephen Colbert was the last guy who raised his hand making the final count 4. Yes, four Americans ready to replace immigrant farm workers. This is laughable, tragic and painful all at once. The agricultural industry, greatly subsidized by American taxpayers, relies on hardworking, determined, “no BS” workers.

President Obama and the Congress must act, not before November elections, not in 60 days, but now. Not just more Larry Pages, Sergey Brins, but all immigrants. We must legalize the workforce that for so long has been in the shadows and not realized its God given potential. We must, like Fred Wilson pointed out, increase the visas for science, technology, engineering, and medicine (STEM) grads, startup visas, and H1B visas to ensure American companies have a steady stream of high caliber workers. And most of all we must not let comprehensive immigration reform be a political football like we’ve seen with Americas War Veterans with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Fenton communications, teaming up with Presente.org, has already been operating a site called, MoveTheGame, urging the public to get involved in the effort to relocate next year’s All-Star game out of Arizona.

Since the Arizona law pretty much sanctions racial profiling in the name of immigration enforcement, one could imagine that an event with MLB, whose league is comprised of not only a diverse group of players but immigrants as well, that there could be hostility towards players, players’ families, and fans. The Major League Baseball Players Association has already issued a statement in opposition to the Arizona law back in April.

My feeling is that it is unconscionable to put MLB players, their families and fans at risk of being stopped by the local law enforcement authorities in this state because they may appear ‘foreign’. Furthermore, Major League Baseball shouldn’t award a state that stokes the flames of hatred and fear with an event like the All-Star game that brings in millions of dollars.

The meat of Murguia and Henderson’s piece is at the end, which I will include for readers here:

Surely the “best interests of baseball” include protecting players and millions of fans of color, not allowing MLB to be perceived as condoning blatant discrimination and injustice, and taking a stand for fairness, equality and other values that Americans and baseball hold dear. Selig should stand up for these players, these fans and these values.

Such a move would not be unprecedented. The NCAA does not allow post-season events, such as the Final Four, to occur in states that fly the Confederate flag. Years ago the NFL stood up to Arizona over its refusal to recognize the Martin Luther King Jr. federal holiday and moved the 1993 Super Bowl. Those sports institutions defended their players and fans, even though there was no direct threat to their safety. The Arizona law, however, is a direct threat, and Selig ought to take action.

If MLB wants to maintain the right to call baseball America’s favorite pastime, and preserve the legacy of Jackie Robinson, the All-Star game should not go to Phoenix next year. Commissioner, for the sake of baseball players and millions of fans, move the game.

If you are in agreement that MLB should move next year’s All-Star game, please take action here.

One might ask where and who are the Latino national leaders? Indeed at the local level, there are scores of activists, volunteers, politicians, clergy and other admirable folk seeking relief for the Latinos in their communities. Yet rarely if ever do we see Latino political or national civil society leaders on the Sunday TV network talk shows addressing the Hispanic agenda or plight while offering some ideas for consideration or treating these problems. Perhaps the traditional media finds the Latino story or journey uninteresting. Even more disconcerting, if one watches Spanish-language network talk shows like Jorge Ramos‘ Sunday morning hour, the compelling question is: where are the Latino leaders or even more specifically, how often does Ramos interview a Mexican-American (which is the overwhelming majority of Latinos in the country) to comment on the national or international issues at hand affecting the Latino community? It is widely and sadly known that Ramos and his colleagues are most hesitant to interview Mexican-Americans, especially those born here. Perhaps it is the Spanish language competence or is it worse than that: maybe Mexican-Americans are not viewed as telegenic (perhaps these TV personalities feel Mexican-Americans are too dark or not clever enough for their tastes). The spokespersons for Latin American countries and many of the recently arrived well-heeled immigrants do seem to fare better in getting on the Spanish language networks. Another discouraging fact is: where are the US Latino public intellectuals? If they exist, who are they? And why are they not heard or known? Do they publish? Are they pundits? It appears that at high holidays for the Community like the Cinco de Mayo, Hispanic Month and September 16, the only hero consistently quoted is Caesar Chavez, who was truly a saint in many ways yet his anti-illegal immigrant stand is not mentioned. As a labor leader at the time, it was normal for him to take this position since many undocumented immigrants were used as scabs to break up strikes. Yet the Community thirsts to hear and get to know a national political leader and read thoughtful insights from our own public intellectuals and social critics. Perhaps this might explain why the dominant white population has no interest or fear of Latinos in concrete terms: Latinos have no one who rallies them or lack a truly defining issue that brings them all together. Is this valid?

The current discernible white backlash against immigrants is fast becoming plainly anti-Latino: legal or illegal or native born. This is serving ironically in many instances to further divide us: the native born Latinos from the immigrants and the legal from the undocumented; the white versus non-white Latinos; the wealthy from the have-nots and separate one Hispanic nationality from another.The sad fact is that Latino community is disunited, scattered, divided and often frustrated. But the yearning and hope for real and effective leadership remains among the community. But be certain that to be accepted as the real leaders, he or she must be sprung from the loins of the community. They cannot just be ‘designated hitters’ chosen by the dominant white mandarin class. These higher circles seek Latino leaders who have punched his and her ticket in all the white dominant institutions like the Ivy league, hallowed law firms, the correct political appointments, passed muster by the bankers and the real estate developers, be a media darling fabricated or cultivated by the white liberal or conservative establishment to be virtually a Latino Manchurian Candidate. The Latino community is consistently being underestimated in many ways. Yet, the community must begin to understand that political unity which implies being politically monolithic, possessing social cohesion, expressing one big vision leadership, attempting to cobble together a forceful amalgamated national group will all be largely illusive. We will continue to be a defused and diverse group to be certain but the label Hispanic or Latino which stems from being linked to the Iberian peninsula’s language or culture does have a real effect of making us part of a great and rich heritage as Hispanics/Latinos. But as Americans we are loyal and patriotic and earnest believers in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and justice and fairness. The Latino Community merely seeks genuine national leaders who will guide, steer and comfort them through these troubled waters. Just where are the Hispanic Congressional Caucus members, the Latino Academicians, the pundits, the artists, the Hispanic captains of industry and banking, the Latino clergy and high Churchman like the soon to be the first Latino Cardinal of the Catholic Church? These are the voices that need to be heard and become pathfinders to this awakening giant.

The bill that Brewer signed today “prohibits classes that advocate ethnic solidarity, that are designed primarily for students of a particular race or that promote resentment toward a certain ethnic group.”

The Tuscon School district offers a Mexican-American studies program, in addition to courses in Native-American and African-American studies. The  focus is on ethnic history, literature, and information about the influences of these particular groups. However, law makers who promoted the bill believe that these courses teach students that they are oppressed by whites.

I’m a product of public schools that did not have ethnic studies, but I remember as a young high school student that I was always eager to read books by Hispanic authors such as Rudolfo Anaya, Ana Castillo, or even the great Colombian author Gabriel Garcia Marquez and was ready to immerse myself in the studies about my culture. I sought it out on my own, and fortunately, my parents encouraged it. But many students don’t have those resources or parents who encourage discovery and learning about their culture in addition to exploring other ethnic groups and traditions.

Regardless of what one thinks about ethnic studies and whether it is a valuable discipline or not, completely shutting these courses down may do more harm than good. I was able to speak with Cindy Mosqueda, a Ph.D. student in higher education and blogger at Loteria Chicana. Mosqueda was a Chicano studies student at UCLA as an undergraduate, and she indicated that in her experience ethnic studies was not about teaching ethnic superiority nor was it a continual lesson in being oppressed.

Mosqueda expressed, “In fact in fact, we were encouraged to take classes outside the department, and I got to know students of other ethnicities better that way.”

While I have never formally immersed myself in ethnic studies from an academic perspective, I can appreciate the teaching of different ethnic traditions and the notion that there should be multiple points of view taught in the public schools. We have never been a ‘one curriculum fits all nation’, and completely shutting down these ethnic studies courses might turn off students who are marginal students — the ones who might benefit from learning about their history and reading the works of authors from their ethnic group. The generic public school curriculum is boring enough as it is. The history books already censor and omit so much that shutting down ethnic studies is a small minded solution for Arizona’s public school children. With the signing of this bill, Governor Jan Brewer ratcheted up the level of scrutiny her state will face from all who care about diversity and equitable policy.

A few weeks ago, I was able to preview the new film produced by brothers Benjamin and Peter Bratt, La Mission. Benjamin Bratt used to be on Law and Order and has been in a handful of different films from Piñero to Love in the Time of Cholera. I think that Benjamin is one of the underrated actors in our community and that he actually has a wide range — he can be convincing in a suit and dressed down as a blue collar guy. In my view, Benjamin exhibits a true passion for his craft.

La Mission is set in the Mission District of San Francisco, a historically Latino neighborhood this diverse city, and the film’s protagonist, Che, played by Bratt is a single father who drives a MUNI bus and works on low-rider custom cars. Che is also a recovering alcoholic and has served time in the joint. Che definitely displays a certain machismo, but he also has a sense of community and pride in how he carries himself. And what becomes quite evident from the beginning is that Che loves his child, a UCLA bound high school senior, who he discovers is gay.

Overall, I thought that the film makes a decent attempt to address the homophobia issues that some of us have in our families. Predictably, Che becomes enraged when he learns of his child’s sexual orientation and then moves from anger to denial to finally a tentative sense of acceptance. I don’t think that this film is going to win any Oscars or mainstream film awards, but it’s definitely worth checking out. I think that some of the limitations of the film have more to do with the budget and size of the project than with the actual acting or story line. However, I did find some of the dialogue to be a bit cliche. If you are in doubt, catch the matinee.

Here’s a preview, followed by Michaelr’s review:

“La Mission,” a drama set in San Francisco’s Mission District, starring Benjamin Bratt and directed by his brother Peter Bratt, has a rather drawn out story line about a single father, who in middle-age finally discovers that his son is gay.  The film centers on the father’s angst and the son’s efforts to deal with his father.  None of this is new to mainstream films.  What is original is the setting for how this is played out.

When I think of San Francisco, I think of Fisherman’s Wharf, Willie Mays, Barry Bonds and the Giants, Santana, the Haight-Ashbury District, Jefferson Airplane, Harvey Milk, and the Castro.  As one of the most enlightened communities on the planet earth, San Francisco is the ideal setting to play out this drama.  However, there are some principle photography miscues and some dramatic challenges.

Benjamin Bratt’s performance is exceptional and believable. Having witnessed the whole “cholito” subculture up close and seeing the machismo attitude wreak its own special type of havoc makes all of Benjamin Bratt’s quirks, visuals, and language dead on.  He is the soul of this film.  And he carries this cross firmly on his shoulders.  His performance, however, is undermined by pacing, some holes in the screenplay, and some miscasting amongst principle support characters.

It is difficult to believe a parent would not know his child’s sexual orientation.  Yet, Benjamin Bratt does manage to suspend that disbelief by incorporating all those hard edged mannerisms and camouflage (his tattoos), and making his machismo, which has its own processes of cerebral regression, a self standing character of its own.  His performance overwhelms the rest of the cast, in nearly every scene, with the exception of Jesse Borrego’s direct interaction with him.  Then again, both actors have a long history working together so they know how to play off of each other.

There should have been more attention to detail with the son, his mannerisms, his quirks, and his hidden agenda. Their scenes (those of father and those of the son) should have run parallel to each other, as if on a rapid collision course.  Given that this is set in a blue collar, ethnic environment surrounded by all the phobias that only Catholicism and Colonialism mentalities can inspire, their scenes together should’ve been explosive. They aren’t. The son is weepy and confused.  And Benjamin Bratt is forced to internalize his rage, and push out in a more tolerant, yet painful expression.

The rest of the cast doesn’t rise to the occasion. And the camera setups and movement turn this drama into network television film of the week territory.  I would have preferred to see Talisa Soto play the role of Erika Alexander, which could have provided more chemistry and possible romantic links, displaying the complete opposite view points of Benjamin Bratt’s character.  The Castro District itself could have been portrayed as one of the characters in the film with different camera setups, and a more direct POV focus.

See this to witness Benjamin Bratt’s entrance into Raul Julia’s dramatic territory.  Hollywood rarely invests in character driven Latino protagonists. As you all know, we’re violent, oversexed, small-minded, uneducated cocaine merchants covered with tattoos, dangling gaudy jewelry, and always surrounded by our gangs and the ICE. I hope Peter Bratt isn’t discouraged selling this type of project to Hollywood (one that bucks the usual stereotypes a bit). Moreover, he should seek the influence and association of Taylor Hackford, who managed to sell alternative visuals of Latino culture to Hollywood with his films “Blood In and Blood Out, aka Bound By Honor” and “La Bamba.” Or maybe even Edward James Olmos?

Who knows?… Maybe this will drive the effort to finally get a portrayal of Cesar Chavez onto the big screen.  This would really throw WASP America for a loop when they see Latino characters utilizing political dialogue to achieve an ideal without cleaning toilets, mowing someone’s lawn, or killing each other in the process. Nevertheless, La Mission is a step in the right direction, artistically of course, in less than a thousand words.

Whitman addressed how the Republican Party has not done enough to reach out to Latinos and that she was working hard to involve Latinos in her campaign. Well, that’s fine and dandy, but it looks like Whitman hasn’t been including Latinos in her circle especially when she had a chance to hire them in the management of eBay when she was CEO. Now some may say that there aren’t enough qualified Latinos to work at a large technology company like eBay, but while our numbers in the technology and science fields may be small, Latino technology and management professionals do exist, especially in a state like California. An independent expenditure ad came out this week playing up Meg Whitman’s diversity and job creation for Latinos while she was at eBay, and I thought that it was a clever use of old mariachi that is typically used to pander to our community:

What are your thoughts? Could Whitman have found one or two Latino managers while at eBay or is her new foundlove for LA-TEE-NOZ just a campaign gimmick?

Dodd’s political troubles have been attributed in part to his connection with the Countrywide VIP mortgage program, which gave sweetheart deals to important politicos. The fallout from the mortgage and foreclosure crisis and the corruption within those companies is something that even tarnished Latino leaders. It is worth reminding everyone in light of Dodd’s pending retirement that Henry Cisneros, former cabinet secretary and Latino honcho, was on the Countrywide Board and also profited handsomely from his own ties to this toxic and now defunct company.

If y’all want a reminder of how some in the Latino political establishment was tied to the mortgage mess. I encourage you to read these two blog posts that I wrote early last year: The Great American Mortgage Scam & the Latino Community and The Great American Mortgage Scam & the Latino  Community, Part II.

In concluding, I do give Dodd credit for trying to mend the banking fiasco by trying to reform the industry. When Dodd’s bill was unveiled back in November, it was said:

“the bill would create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency to regulate such things as credit cards and home mortgages. Banks that are “too big to fail” would, as a final resort, be required to reduce their size and consequently the risk they pose to the financial structure if regulators demanded it. A single banking regulator would be created from the patchwork system that currently allows banks to shop for the fattest and laziest cop.”

It will be interesting to see how the bank reform bill will evolve. Perhaps without having anything to lose, Dodd will push more aggressively…we can hope.

Updated 1/6/10: The Washington Post has a piece about how Dodd’s retirement may boost the chances for financial regulatory reform. Consumer advocates are hopeful that he will focus on policy that will benefit the citizens instead of the banks.

I would like to note this particular part:

“In some ways, Obama is simply following his predecessor’s example. Until the Obama administration, Bush’s Cabinet was widely considered the most ethnically diverse in U.S. history, with Hispanics serving as secretaries of commerce and housing and as attorney general. Less than half of Obama’s Cabinet consists of white men.

About half of Obama’s picks trace their roots to Mexico and the former Spanish holdings in the Southwest, not surprising since two-thirds of Hispanics in the U.S. identify themselves as Mexican-American. But the administration also includes about half a dozen people of South American descent and nearly a dozen Hispanics from the Caribbean.”

Two things worth noting in this piece that I agree with. First, the appointments obviously don’t give Obama a free pass on immigration or other issues important in our communities. We still need to hold our officials accountable and put pressure on them, who can in turn pressure the President. Second, at the end of the piece, there is a statement about the effect of these appointments not being felt for possibly 15-20 years down the line as mid level officials often continue to climb in the bureaucracy or eventually run for higher office. This is true and makes a lot of sense. Right now people are building networks in their new positions. Some may run for office, go into the private sector, or in turn mentor other Latinos who seek to work in the federal government. Building a larger presence in the federal bureaucracy will take time, and of course, a lot of this will hinge on our community’s educational attainment and ability to network early in our careers.

The piece also noted, “More than half of the appointees hold an Ivy League degree, and more than a quarter, like the president, have a diploma from Harvard, an Associated Press review found.” Our high school dropout and subsequent college retention and graduation rates are going to have to improve to remain competitive.

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…’

A few weeks ago, the Chronicle described the Maldonado pick as follows:

After naming Maldonado on the show, Schwarzenegger said, “He’s a terrific, loyal man that has worked very hard in public service. But he’s also into bipartisanship and post-partisanship, so he can cross the aisle. He makes decisions based on what’s best for the people rather than what’s best for the party.”

Maldonado, a 42-year-old moderate Republican whose family emigrated from Mexico, has provided crucial votes on major legislation this year, including the water overhaul package approved last month and tax increases that were part of the February budget plan.

But apparently, a moderate GOPer isn’t good enough for the more conservative elements of the Republican Party. And the Democrats aren’t too pleased either, as they are conflicted about opposing his appointment, especially because Maldonado is a Latino and they too could face backlash in not supporting him. I am of the opinion that the Democrats should not hold up the Maldonado confirmation. He is bi-partisan, and the California Lieutenant Governor position is basically ceremonial. As for the California GOP, if they want to continue to bicker because Maldonado isn’t conservative enough, well, they can continue on the path of the politics of obstruction. And those Latinos who lean red should note this.