Posted on 02/21/2015 2:05:01 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz has become the darling of the Tea Party and other extreme right Republicans. He is seen as their potential presidential candidate.
Cruz is a superb orator and the big plus: He's Hispanic. One needs to put a pan below the chin of the right-wingers to catch the drool.
They now know that in order to win the White House their candidate must take between 35 and 40 percent of the Hispanic vote. So having a candidate that not only thinks like they do and is a great orator with leadership qualities, they feel, is a winning combination.
If right-wingers don't know it, surely Sen. Cruz does. Hispanic is a generic description for the various descendants of numerous Spanish-speaking countries in the Western Hemisphere. Cruz happens to belong to one such group: Cuban-American.
According to the Pew Research Center, Cubans in the U.S. number 1.9 million, Central-Americans 4.3 million, and the gorilla in the room - Mexican-Americans - 33.5 million.
So the question is: Can the Cuban-American Cruz appeal to the other groups, in particular to Mexican-Americans and Central-Americans? Without a significant number of their votes, Cruz would not be the next White House occupant.
How is Cruz going to explain to them why he brought the nation to the rink of economic disaster by shutting down the government in a zealot's attempt to rescind Obamacare - needed by more than 11 million Hispanics without health insurance? And while at it, how will he explain to the thousands of small Hispanc businesses that saw new contracts placed on hold by major clients due to the uncertainty he and his colleagues created?
How will he reconcile his belief that there is need for immigration reform, but not until the border is secure? What is his idea of secure? Not one person entering? Does this include drug traffickers? How are they attached to immigration reform? And why is only the Mexican border singled out?
How will he explain his opposition to the Dream Act, which allows youngsters brought here in childhood illegally to seek higher educations?
How will he be able to say that his family's immigration experience is akin to theirs? Cruz'es own father was granted immediate entry not once, but twice. Cubans received favored treatment on arrival to the U.S. Being granted immediate sanctuary, they were placed on a fast track for permanent residency and a path to citizenship.
And how will he explain that on a boat full of Cuban, Dominican and Haitian refugees, only Cubans were given sanctuary on arrival here, while the others were returned to their country into the cruel and waiting arms of the dictators of those days?
How will he explain his silence when elected and non-elected members of his own party speak so disdainfully of his fellow Hispanics? How will he explain his silence when several states pass draconian laws singling out Mexicans for special enforcement?
Maybe Senator Cruz is not aware that there is tremendous discontent in the Mexican-American community towards the Republican Party, which does nothing to rectify the relationship. A considerable number of votes cast during the last presidential election were against the Republicans, with Obama the beneficiary.
All ethnic groups within the Hispanic community want better education for their children and themselves, more economic opportunities, more available jobs, and health care coverage. Note. Senator Cruz, these are mostly the same issues as all Americans care about.
Most Americans, including the majority of Hispanics, are not in favor of illegal immigration or open borders, as many of your colleagues claim. As you and your cn olleagues claim to favor legal immigration, so also do Hispanics.
They want an orderly process that U.S. businesses can comply with and that can benefit our economy. But instead of working on immigration reform, you're stuck with simplistic sound bites that please your patrons.
Be aware, Senator Cruz, that you will have a tough row to hoe with the greatest number of "Hispanics," and that speaking Spanish will not overcome their skepticism.
But don't worry about Senator Rubio, as he'll have to face the same scrutiny you will if he beats you out of the nomination.
******
AR Correspondent Patrick Osio, is the Editor of HispanicVista and is based in Los Angees. He can be contacted at mailto: POsioJr@aol.com
We saw that attitude in the CA gov election between Schwarzenegger and Tom McClintock. That’s why we ended up with Ahnold.
Romney won the moderate/independent vote in 2012, but he lost the election. The conservative base was what he needed---and didn't get.
Do you have the numbers on that?
One thing those numbers do show is that we, Conservatives, are outnumbered. We need candidate who can with both the right and the middle. That's why I think we'll need to nominate a woman to win in 2016.
But if Cruz gets the nomination, I'm in.
That was one of the points on which we differed.
" It doesn't tell me whether it was the Conservatives or the independents who stayed home."
That's been documented by numerous sources, including Rush Limbaugh, and discussed here at FR. It's easily found by searching the site or putting the keywords into Google. Three million conservatives stayed at home in 2012.
"One thing those numbers do show is that we, Conservatives, are outnumbered. We need candidate who can with both the right and the middle."
You can only think that by ignoring the previous facts, and history itself. Every time we have a moderate candidate who preoccupies himself with snaring the middle, we lose. I really don't understand how many losses it's going to take before people get it.
" That's why I think we'll need to nominate a woman to win in 2016."
Right, that's going to help. Just like blacks flocked to Allen West, Herman Cain, etc.
"But if Cruz gets the nomination, I'm in."
Same here.
That gives you a lot of articles -- or a lot of copies of the same article -- written right after the election. Later on, that view was called into question.
In reality, the exit polls showed that a record 35% of all voters who cast ballots in 2012 identified themselves as “conservative” – which helped to explain why Romney drew more than a million votes more than John McCain, while Obama got nearly four million votes less than he did in 2008. For the victorious George W. Bush in 2004, conservatives amounted to only 34% of those who voted, so their percentage of the electorate actually increased for Mitt Romney. The great Ronald Reagan managed to win a landslide in 1980 with an electorate that included only 28% of self-identified conservatives. Source
It's hard to say just who is a conservative and who isn't, but it doesn't look like more ideologically committed conservatives stayed home in 2012 than in 2008.
Right. There’s no statistical evidence whatsoever that enough conservatives stayed home to change anything, much less flip a state.
Which if true was just over half of Obama's margin of victory in the popular vote.
Every time we have a moderate candidate who preoccupies himself with snaring the middle, we lose.
I never said anything about a moderate woman. Joni Ernst, who I'm hoping is interested in the job, has very solid Conservative credentials.
Right, that's going to help. Just like blacks flocked to Allen West, Herman Cain, etc.
Herman Cain lost because he either couldn't control himself, or folded under false and easily refuted accusations. West didn't run.
Are you against nominating a Conservative woman?
It wasn't the only factor. There were others, such as voter fraud, missing military ballots, etc. But no party can win without its base. Do you dispute that?
"I never said anything about a moderate woman. Joni Ernst, who I'm hoping is interested in the job, has very solid Conservative credentials."
I have nothing against Joni Ernst, but I've seen nothing to indicate to me that she's ready for the presidency.
"Herman Cain lost because he either couldn't control himself, or folded under false and easily refuted accusations. West didn't run."
That's not the point.
Conservative blacks are viewed with derision and contempt by their fellows. Hispanics largely vote to keep their government benefits. Sarah Palin was mocked mercilessly by non-conservative women.
Holding onto the fruitless wish that skin color, ethnicity, or sex is somehow going to prove the magic factor in bringing hordes of voters to support our side is just that...fruitless. Ir's amazing that you've managed to miss past examples.
As for me, I've never subscribed to identity politics and I'm not going to start.
"Are you against nominating a Conservative woman?"
Overall I prefer a male candidate. That may shock and scandalize women who are down with the sisterhood, but I couldn't care less.
IF a suitable conservative female candidate were nominated, I would vote for her, but I haven't seen any who are presidential material at this point.
I saw those voter fraud links from another Freeper. About 80% of them pointed to the same information, and some refuted the points that Freeper was trying to make. None of them proved anything.
But no party can win without its base. Do you dispute that?
No, but do you think the Dem turnout was 100%?
I have nothing against Joni Ernst, but I've seen nothing to indicate to me that she's ready for the presidency.
She's as ready as any of them, and I think we'll need someone with military experience.
That's not the point.
That's what actually happened, regardless of your point.
Holding onto the fruitless wish that skin color, ethnicity, or sex is somehow going to prove the magic factor in bringing hordes of voters to support our side is just that...fruitless.
Hordes? Probably not, but I believe we would get votes from the middle that we might not get otherwise.
Ir's amazing that you've managed to miss past examples.
Ir is?;) The examples you gave did not prove your point.
As for me, I've never subscribed to identity politics and I'm not going to start.
I agree, but this isn't the electorate that voted for Reagan in 1980 and 1984. We'll need every vote we can get.
Overall I prefer a male candidate.
That does surprise me.
ToT, I suspect you're going to reject anything that doesn't support your enthusiasm for a politically correct gender and/or ethnicity based candidate. Sorry, but that seems to be the case.
"No, but do you think the Dem turnout was 100%?"
Uh, what?
Never mind.
"She's as ready as any of them, and I think we'll need someone with military experience."
As ready as any of them...now there's a ringing endorsement. As one Freeper said, the reaction to her bland post-SOTU address seemed to be different versions of, "Bless her heart, she did fine." But she wears a skirt, so, quick---nominate her.
"That's what actually happened, regardless of your point."
No. What has happened, over and over again, is conservatives getting all excited over someone because they fill a certain niche, expecting that single factor to garner votes, and coming away mystified when the magic failed to work. But some of us still keep hoping and trying.
"Hordes? Probably not, but I believe we would get votes from the middle that we might not get otherwise."
Your belief flies in the face of what we already know.
How did Mitt win the middle vote? He's as white as the snow outside my door. Was it the magic underwear?
"Ir is?;) The examples you gave did not prove your point."
It is. You've managed to miss the real occurrences which fly in the face of your fantasy, and now you need examples on an internet forum to prove them to you. Where've you been all this time?
"I agree, but this isn't the electorate that voted for Reagan in 1980 and 1984. We'll need every vote we can get."
You don't seem to agree. This isn't the first thread where you've voiced your enthusiasm for identity politics.
"Overall I prefer a male candidate."
"That does surprise me."
Does it? Why? I ask sincerely. I'm intrigued.
I want a Conservative who can win. IMO, a Conservative woman has a better chance of winning.
As ready as any of them...now there's a ringing endorsement.
She's a Conservative and a Vet. That's my endorsement of her to Conservatives.
As one Freeper said, the reaction to her bland post-SOTU address seemed to be different versions of, "Bless her heart, she did fine."
OK, she's a Conservative and a Vet, but you and/or another Freeper found her post-SOTU address bland. Decisions.
No. What has happened, over and over again, is conservatives getting all excited over someone because they fill a certain niche, expecting that single factor to garner votes, and coming away mystified when the magic failed to work.
You mean when FR rallied around Newt in 2012 to prevent a Romney nomination? That didn't work out too well either, did it?.
Your belief flies in the face of what we already know I believe.
Fixed.
How did Mitt win the middle vote? He's as white as the snow outside my door. Was it the magic underwear?
Maybe many in the middle knew what a catastrophe Obama would be if he was re-elected, and tried to prevent it. But Romney would have been just as bad as Obama, so I stayed home and/or voted third party.
It is. You've managed to miss the real occurrences which fly in the face of your fantasy...
You mean like what happened to West and Cain, which were the examples you used? Remind us again why they weren't nominated.
You don't seem to agree. This isn't the first thread where you've voiced your enthusiasm for identity politics.
You apparently can't tell the difference between enthusiasm for something and acknowledging that it exists.
Does it? Why? I ask sincerely. I'm intrigued.
Assuming you're a woman, isn't that a backwards form of identity politics?/i
Again, pandering doesn't produce results. We've seen it over and over. Some of us even learn from it.
"She's a Conservative and a Vet. That's my endorsement of her to Conservatives."
I thought you said you wanted her because she wears a skirt?
"OK, she's a Conservative and a Vet,"
And a woman! Yay!
" but you and/or another Freeper found her post-SOTU address bland. Decisions."
You're not reading correctly. I said a Freeper described the REACTION---general reaction---to her speech. She came off as bland and boring, and the speech was more mouthed platitudes that anything else.
Also, I have a feeling she would run that damned bread bags thing into the ground pretty quickly.
"You mean when FR rallied around Newt in 2012 to prevent a Romney nomination? That didn't work out too well either, did it?"
What special interest niche did Newt fill?
Your belief flies in the face of what we already know I believe.
"Fixed."
Failure to recognize historical fact is the only thing here that needs fixing, ToT, and that flaw is yours.
"Maybe many in the middle knew what a catastrophe Obama would be if he was re-elected, and tried to prevent it. But Romney would have been just as bad as Obama, so I stayed home and/or voted third party."
Maybe this and maybe that. Maybe a cow will jump over the moon, but we'd do much better to stick to precedence and to facts. Pandering doesn't work.
"You mean like what happened to West and Cain, which were the examples you used? Remind us again why they weren't nominated."
Not the issue.
The issue is the general reaction of blacks to West and Cain. They were mocked, reviled, practically spit upon by their fellow blacks because of their conservatism.
Learn from the past, ToT.
"You apparently can't tell the difference between enthusiasm for something and acknowledging that it exists."
Is that right? You've been pushing a woman candidate for a while now. You seem pretty enthusiastic to me. Go ahead. Nominate a conservative woman for her sex alone, expect other women to flock to her like yourself, and watch her get slapped in the face and dragged through the mud.
"Assuming you're a woman, isn't that a backwards form of identity politics?"
Did the Catherine part tip you off?
You might think that if you can't tell the difference between identity politics and a personal preference.
I recall many Brits said they voted for Maragret Thatcher because she was a woman. I don't personally agree with voting for this reason, but it got us a great ally for Reagan.
I thought you said you wanted her because she wears a skirt?
I want her, or I would support Cruz, because they are Conservatives. The fact that she wears a skirt might help her with the middle.
You're not reading correctly. I said a Freeper described the REACTION---general reaction---to her speech. She came off as bland and boring, and the speech was more mouthed platitudes that anything else.
Here is what you posted here.
"As one Freeper said, the reaction to her bland post-SOTU address seemed to be different versions of, "Bless her heart, she did fine.""
The reaction noted by the Freeper was that the general response was that she did fine. The "bland" was either from you or the other Freeper.
Also, I have a feeling she would run that damned bread bags thing into the ground pretty quickly.
So here we go again. In 2012, Freepers spent as much time attacking the Conservative choices they ditn't support. Now you attack her based on what you think will happen, and she hasn't even thrown her name into the ring yet. We can see who hasn't learned from history.
Maybe this and maybe that. Maybe a cow will jump over the moon, but we'd do much better to stick to precedence and to facts. Pandering doesn't work.
What a weak non-reply. You were the one who pointed out that Romney won the independants while millions of Conservatives stayed home. I accept those are the facts.
Why did the independants desert Obama if they were satisfied with his performance. You want to stick with facts, offer facts to explain this instead of evasions.
They were mocked, reviled, practically spit upon by their fellow blacks because of their conservatism.
I never said they weren't as this is a favorite tactic by the left against all Conservatives, but this isn't why neither got the Republican nomination.
Is that right? You've been pushing a woman candidate for a while now.
Oh how horrible. I have said I would support the candidate you support, but I prefer a Conservative female candidate, so you're going to fire post after post at me because I you think I want a moderate or some other idea that you just have to keep posting over and over again.
I think having a woman candidate is our best hope for getting a Conservative into the White House. If you don't agree with me, that's OK. I'll gladly support your choice, Cruz, too.
Nominate a conservative woman for her sex alone, expect other women to flock to her like yourself, and watch her get slapped in the face and dragged through the mud.
The left will drag any of our Conservative choices through the mud, including Cruz. Avoiding nominating a woman won't prevent that. For someone who keeps telling me to learn from history, you're sure willing to disregard it when it serves your purposes.
But then, it's not even easy to tell what your purpose is. You've spent the past several days attacking me because of my expressed opinion that a woman might have the best chance of beating the Democrats at their own game. Stating that I support a Conservative, and I have posted comments elsewhere promoting the positive qualities of other potential Conservative candidates, have gone right past you.
Did the Catherine part tip you off?
Not that I would accuse you of lying, but people some times use screen names that don't actually describe them.
You might think that if you can't tell the difference between identity politics and a personal preference.
You can spin it as a personal preference, but it's still based on identity.
With all due respect to you, ToT, this conversation is like talking with a brick.
Once I start having to repeat myself for the third time, I’m done.
You have a good evening, though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.