Posted on 01/11/2012 3:14:01 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
There’s been a new set of rumblings in the current GOP 2012 race that involves a Hispanic politician. And no, it’s not Senator Marco Rubio.
Although the rumors and gossip of him becoming the VP nominee simply won’t dissipate, despite his repeated “No” statements, it’s not him. Instead it’s been Puerto Rico Governor Luis Fortuño.
While talk of Fortuño having a greater political future ahead of him has been around as early as May 2010, the idea of Fortuño having a serious shot at attaining greater political office has only begun to take form. While Senator Rubio has been the Hispanic face of the GOP since his election in 2010, Governor Fortuño has been quietly been behind the scenes enacting significant reforms in Puerto Rico since his election in 2008. From cutting the state (I use the term ‘state’ simply for convenience purposes) government workforce by 23,000 (at the time nearly 60% of those employed on the island were working for the government), to enacting major tax reform, to greater transparency for elected officials, to slashing bloated government spending several years in a row, Governor Fortuño has a wealth of accomplishments on par with Republican Governors Chris Christie and John Kasich.
(Excerpt) Read more at politic365.com ...
This is a very intriguing possibility and Governor Fortuno has bona fide budget-cutting credentials.
I said this months ago on FR.
How would that work? He’d have to move to the mainland to be able to vote for himself, wouldn’t he? It is my understanding that PRs are US citizens, but they can vote only if they live in the US.
When Fortunato can stop id theft, document fraud and drug smuggling between PR and the US, then he may be ready to move stateside to escalate his political career.
RE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2831659/posts
This was going on long before Fortuno became Governor. He can’t fix everything overnight.
Rubio & Fortuño, two great conservatives no matter what color.
In 2007, Fortuño joined Rep. José Serrano (D-NY) and 128 other co-sponsors in filing HR 900, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, to establish a self-determination process leading to political status change for Puerto Rico. The bill was amended and approved in a voice vote by the House's Committee on Resources on October 23, a major victory for Fortuño. However, as other political status bills in the past, the measure never made it to the President for his signature.
The referendum would have given Puerto Ricans the choice between the options of retaining their present political status, or choosing a new status. If the former option were to win, the referendum would have been held again every 8 years. If the latter option were to win, a separate referendum would have been held no later than December 31, 2011. In this referendum, Puerto Ricans would have been given the option of being admitted as a U.S. State "on equal footing with the other states," or becoming a "sovereign nation, either fully independent from or in free association with the United States." Were Puerto Ricans to choose statehood, independence, or free association, the US Congress would have had six months to act on the wishes of the Puerto Rican people.
The vote (April 2010) in the Dem controlled House was 223-139 to approve. Reps voted 129-39 AGAINST the bill while the Dems voted 184-40 FOR IT.
You are correct. While residing in Puerto Rico, Puerto Ricans cannot vote in U.S. presidential elections, but they can vote in primaries. Puerto Ricans who become residents of a U.S. state can vote in presidential elections.
Luis Fortuño is very pro-life, has cut some spending and lowered income taxes, but he is hardly the second coming of Ronald Reagan that many conservative pundits are so willing to annoint him as. Throw in the fact that his home state has 0 electoral votes and that he wouldn’t even be able to vote for the presidential ticket, and the pick would make even less sense. Yes, there are a lot of Puerto Ricans in Central Florida that grew up in Puerto Rico and still have close ties to the Island, but probably close to half of them are from the “pro-Commonwealth” Popular Democratic Party in Puerto Rico politics and thus would not be very motivated to vote for a ticket with Fortuño (who is a Republican, but locally is a member of the pro-statehood New Progressive Party. And Fortuño would have even more limited appeal to non-Puerto Rican Hispanics.
If the GOP presidential nominee wants a Hispanic runningmate, FL Senator Marco Rubio (who is Cuban-American) and NM Governor Susana Martinez (who is Mexican-American) would be exponentially better picks. As I recently posted, though, since our nominee will almost certainly be either a Mormon (Romney) or a Catholic (Santorum), I don’t think that Catholics such as Rubio or Martinez (or Fortuño, for that matter) would be such good selections.
If it were to become a state, I suspect it would have two Dem senators and however many Dems in the House. I believe they would vote no differently than the way Puerto Ricans vote in the US. Hispanics vote 65-35 Dem.
Don’t forget about New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez.
I don’t think that Evangelical Protestants will mind having no Protestant on the GOP ticket. There are none on the Supreme Court and no much cares. Many deep Southern states have elected Catholics to represent them for many years.
As for the other officials named, Marco Rubio and Susana Martinez were just elected to their offices two years ago and need time to establish records.
That tune would certainly make an impact.
Before being elected to the U.S. Senate, Rubio was Speaker of the FL House. I don’t think he’s “too green” to be VP. And Martinez was a DA before she was governor (like Christie), and I think she would have enough experience to be VP.
As for Evangelical Protestants “not minding” the lack of a Protestant on the GOP ticket, I think you’re underestimating the fact that, if Romney is the nominee, he’d already have two strikes against him in their eyes (he is a Mormon and, more importantly, has a socially liberal record), so they’d need to be motivated to go and vote (and bring their friends along), and if Romney picks a Catholic runningmate it may not be very helpful to that end. And if the GOP nominates its first Catholic for president ever, and he picks *another Catholic* as his runningmate? that might not go over so well, either.
As I posted recently, we have an incredible stable of potential VP candidates who happen to be Catholic (Marco Rubio, Bob McDonnell, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Susana Martinez, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, Pat Toomey and Jeb Bush), and any of them would be an ideal choice for almost any Protestant presidential candidate, and this is the one time that we’re going to nominate a Mormon or a Catholic. Talk about bad timing.
Good point about the Court. I didn’t hear anyone on the right complain that were no Protestants on it.
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.