There are many things wrong with this decision on so many levels, and people on the right, left, and center are voicing their concern. Even Senator John McCain, who has been an advocate of campaign finance reform, said this, “I am disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions. However, it appears that key aspects of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), including the ban on soft money contributions, remain intact.”

Another issue with the “corporate personhood” is that it seems that foreign companies will get in on our political act. How is it that American citizens who participate in our elections will now have to compete with oodles of foreign money? We are already deeply indebted to China. A blogger at Unbossed writes, “Congress should prohibit any corporation from engaging in this new political spending if it has any non-American shareholders or owners.” And I completely agree with this one.

Anyway, there will be massive efforts to minimize the impact of this decision that cuts to the core of our democracy, but VivirLatino had a pretty good video explaining why this latest ruling is so damaging. I encourage you to watch it, and please share your thoughts.

In the meantime, the de facto leaders of Honduras have waged a war at home against any opposition to its rule and one abroad with a successful public relations effort, led by Lanny Davis, a Clinton supporter in 2008 and pro-Israeli spinmeister. Lanny Davis has ties to the pro-Isreali lobby, is the treasurer of a pro-Lieberman PAC, and has even referred to himself as a “good friend” of George W. Bush. With credentials like these, it is no wonder that the current government in Honduras tapped Davis to run its PR effort. He is firmly planted in the neocon political establishment, and in doing so, he made it more plausible to connect Zelaya to South American, socialist boogeyman Chavez, even though evidence from the Millennium Challenge Scorecard, utilizing data from the World Bank, UNESCO and Heritage Foundation, shows that the country had relatively high scores for economic freedom. And if the connection of Zelaya to Chavez wasn’t enough to earn the minds of people on the fence in supporting the coup, Davis could also connect Zelaya to Ahmadinejad in Iran, citing Chavez’s support of the Iranian President in his own election woes this spring, which fits nicely with his pro-Israeli portfolio.

Back in Honduras, there have been mass arrests, illegal detentions, violations of women’s rights and the blocking of media that is not favorable to the de facto government. Groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented these abuses, which have yet to be investigated or prosecuted by the Honduran attorney general’s office. Furthermore, many candidates who are running for public office, including one presidential candidate, have removed their names from the ballots for tomorrow in protest against the existing government, likely producing lopsided results. And the current state is coercing workers into participating in the election by informing them that they must show documentation indicating that they have voted or else they may lose their jobs. So far only Panama, Costa Rica, and Peru have indicated that they will recognize the election results, along with the US, as signaled by State Department official Thomas Shannon earlier this month.

The US should reconsider recognizing tomorrow’s elections in Honduras not only because of the widespread abuses of the existing government but to show that things can be different in the region – that there can be full participation in elections by all factions, not just the elite or the usual suspects. Additionally, Secretary Clinton should pay closer attention to the situation and not merely assume that her pal Lanny Davis has it under control. Lanny Davis has credibility issues and is too tied to business interests and neocon factions. If the current government truly represents democracy, it would not abuse those who disagree with it and would allow freedom of the press. Last month a US polling firm surveyed Hondurans and found that 54 percent of the respondents favored a constitutional assembly to resolve the current crisis. This is what ousted President Zelaya was calling for: a constitutional assembly. The US could support dialogue that would lead to a constitutional assembly and not recognize the new government until they restore civil liberties and human rights, while promoting more transparency. Doing so could help restore the credibility and faith that many hoped would accompany the Obama administration, instead of the business as usual approach that the US has taken for decades, contributing to the distrust and skepticism that our neighbors have of US intentions. We wouldn’t tolerate elections under these oppressive conditions, why should we expect the Hondurans to do so?

Some people have suggested that Latinos are only interested in comprehensive immigration reform or domestic policy matters, but as Seneca has pointed out, we are sorely underrepresented in US foreign policy and aren’t readily perceived as players in that game. Hopefully, with the participation of scholars like Nathan Gonzalez in Middle East foreign policy, we can change that perception and learn more in the process. Check out some of the questions I was able to ask him, and feel free to add your own thoughts:

1. Why should Latinos here in the US be concerned with what is happening in Iran? Some in our community have argued that we should stay focused on the domestic issues at hand and foreign policy as it relates to the Americas.

Luckily, I have not heard anyone wonder aloud why we should care about what is happening in Iran. That would make as much sense as someone saying, “Why should I learn Spanish, I live in America!” However, something I have been asked is why I, as a Latino, spend so much time studying and commenting on Iran. But the beauty of your site, and the various efforts underway to increase Latino participation in politics and civil society, is that they provide avenues for Latinos to take part in the larger social fabric. You have Latino doctors, Latino lawyers, and now we’ll have a Latina Supreme Court justice. Why not have Latinos who study the Middle East?

2. You have been a proponent of engaging with Iran. Some have argued that engaging with the current regime would be like legitimizing the leadership, which is kind of like the arguments that have been tossed around for not engaging with Cuba or Venezuela. Do you think that the Obama administration should be more proactive in its approach with Iran?
 
I would be lying if I said that the current crackdown on protesters doesn’t complicate things politically for President Obama here at home. However, the Bush administration aligned our interests very closely to those of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran is the country with the second greatest influence over Iraq, after the United States. This means that for our troops to come home safely, we need to coordinate closely with the Islamic Republic. The same goes for another one of Iran’s neighbor, Afghanistan. We have no choice but to work with whoever is in power in Iran, and that is one of the unfortunate and seldom-told legacies of the Bush presidency.

3. One of the things that comes to mind in watching the demonstrations is that the US has had problems in claiming the legitimacy of its own elections in recent years (2000 & 2004). Do we appear hypocritical if we start to attack Iran’s electoral process?

I don’t agree with those comparisons, which I’ve been hearing a lot. What we saw in Iran was the Interior Ministry proclaim a winner without even taking the time to count votes. It would be like George Bush convening the Electoral College to vote for him before the states even announced their vote tallies. We only mock the disenfranchisement that took place in Florida and Ohio when we make such a moral equivalence.

4. If the protests continue despite warnings from the Supreme Leader Khamenei, what does this say about his authority or power?

The minute the supreme leader took President Ahmadinejad’s side was the moment he lost his above-the-fray status. As the arrests of key political figures continue, such as those targeting the family members of Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president and one of the country’s wealthiest individuals, it becomes more likely that a coup will be attempted through the Assembly of Experts. This is the body headed by Rafsanjani which has the constitutional authority to remove the supreme leader.

5. For me, watching the situation unfold in Iran has been a good reinforcement of why we have a separation of church and state here in the US. In light of recent events in the US that have been tinged with religious thought such as the killing of Dr. George Tiller and the gay marriage debate, do you think it is fair to draw parallels or comparisons of what could happen here if we inched toward more converging of religion with public policy?
 
I think it is a fair comparison. For example, there is nothing in Shia Islam, as traditionally practiced, that allows a mere cleric to take executive authority over the state. But this is exactly what Ayatollah Khomeini did following the Iranian Revolution (1978-79). In other words, just because we think we understand how the Bible or the Qur’an works, it doesn’t mean that popular religious figures can’t hijack those Holy texts to advance their narrow political ambitions, and in the process make life miserable for the rest of us. We can avoid this problem by keeping a sturdy wall separating church and state.

6. Finally, what are you thoughts about the use of social media in disseminating information about the situation in Iran?

I have personally learned a lot from what is happening in Iran. I only started using Twitter after seeing how powerful a communication tool it has been for Iranian protesters. At the same time, we should not exaggerate the role of social networking sites. The last time Iran had a revolution there was no Twitter, no Facebook, and no cell phones. Only courage and determination.

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued…

Andres Ramirez of NDN has done a quick analysis detailing how Latinos voted in this general election compared to four years ago. It is projected that we will continue to see an increase in Latino political participation and that our growing community is becoming solidly Democratic. It seems that the hateful rhetoric on immigration coming from the Republican Party could very well backfire in the solidly red state of Arizona and Texas down the line.

Check out this chart courtesy of NDN:

You can hear President-Elect Obama’s victory speech in Chicago again here:

One thing that he made clear is that he will represent all Americans from every state and will listen to voices of those who did not vote for him in charting a course to bring us back to prosperity. One passage from an editorial that particularly struck me from the NY Times was this:

“His triumph was decisive and sweeping, because he saw what is wrong with this country: the utter failure of government to protect its citizens. He offered a government that does not try to solve every problem but will do those things beyond the power of individual citizens: to regulate the economy fairly, keep the air clean and the food safe, ensure that the sick have access to health care, and educate children to compete in a globalized world.”

In ending this post, I leave you some Sam Cooke. Whenever I hear “A change is gonna come,” I can’t help but reflect on the Obama campaign.

Here are some great pictures from yesterday’s event in Pueblo:

Photo Credit: Crowd Scene from Obama campaign’s flickr account & Restaurant Photo from the AP, taken at Jorge’s Sombrero in Pueblo 11/01/08

You would think that with all of the publicity about the Latino vote during this election cycle that there would be plenty of early voting locations in Los Angeles County, but guess what? There is only one place LA County residents can go to vote early, and that is at the county registrar’s office in Norwalk. How inconvenient! A county with a Latino population that stands at approximately 47.3% of the total as of 2006, a county where Latinos have a tradition of self-governance prior to becoming a state in the union, has only one early voting location, while the O.C. to the south has early voting in multiple locations. What gives? And why don’t we hear the Latino politicos in LA County demanding more voting locations throughout the county?

Some bloggers on the DailyKos were even lamenting about the early voting situation in Los Angeles in this post about Villaraigosa being in Nevada to campaign for Obama. Peacevoter wrote this:

“Good on Mayor Villaraigosa for helping out in Nevada! But he really should do something about early voting in Los Angeles.  There’s only one place in all of LA county to vote early and it’s in Hawthorne [actually Norwalk].  I met one Obama volunteer who took the bus & it took him four and a half hours to get to the early voting location.  (I gave him a ride home)  The process was very disorganized.  It took hours and hours and hours to finally get the ballot & vote.  We need a new registrar of voters.  Some one with their act together & a commitment to expediting the process & setting up early voting locations throughout the county.”

Hopefully, someone with some pull in LA County is reading this and will consider extending voting or opening a few more locations before Tuesday! Voting shouldn’t be this hard, especially in what is supposed to be a progressive state. If the people behind the Orange Curtain can get it, there’s no reason for LA County to not offer as many early voting opportunities.

One thing that I want to explore is McCain’s position on immigration. A few months ago, I blogged about how The Sanctuary bloggers, a nonpartisan group, sent out an immigration related questionnaire to both the Obama and McCain campaigns. It wasn’t the McCain campaign who responded to the questionnaire. However, Barack Obama’s campaign did. If McCain has long supported Latinos as Navarette suggests, why couldn’t he go on the record and answer The Sanctuary bloggers? To me, the obvious reason is that McCain has danced around the immigration issue, as have other politicians.

John McCain once supported the bipartisan immigration reform bill that had his name on it (McCain-Kennedy), but he has now told the public that he would no longer support that bill to instead focus on securing the borders first. Border walls don’t address the root cause of immigration, but they can create havoc with residents on both sides of the wall and don’t seem to be a good long term solution. Eventually, people will find a way around the wall. We have miles of unsecured shore and unsecured border with Canada. Would we eventually resort to building walls and barriers around the rest of the country too?

In the past McCain has said that amnesty would be an important part to immigration reform, but now he won’t affirm that statement. Coming from a border state, McCain has a unique opportunity to build bridges, but he doesn’t seem to be a trailblazer on immigration reform. Another thing that he has mentioned is creating a new guest worker program. I don’t have to go to great lengths to describe the problems with the Bracero program, but you can check out this site at UC Berkeley for a short lesson.

Sure, John McCain has served in the Navy with other Latinos, and yes, he has been honored by NCLR for not wanting to make English the official language of the land, and in the past has said that he would welcome immigrants to America to perform jobs that Americans won’t do, but lately he’s been all over the map. When Ruben Navarette says that McCain has long supported Latinos, I think that he’s referring to a John McCain from a few years ago, a man who hadn’t sold his soul to the extremists in his party, or there’s always the possibility that Navarette knows something that we don’t.