What a silly thing to say.
Because Bush did well with Texas Hispanics, the fact that he got 44% of the total Hispanic vote is meaningless?
That's like saying "Well, if Florida hadn't put in all those three pointers, UCLA would have won."
The texas hispanic vote is a huge component of the total hispanic vote. Presidental candidates (except Gore) tend to carry their own state by huge margins.
Without his home state hispanics pumping up the numbers, Bush was solidly beaten in the nationwide hispanic vote.
Not every politician is from Texas so they won't get that same home state advantage. Let's see how well a conservative republican from Ohio does with the hispanic vote.
It's not even clear that he got 44% of the hispanic vote.
In any event, here is an interesting analysis...
Other nuggets from the analysis: Protestant Hispanics gave Bush a clear majority. (Most Hispanics are Roman Catholic). And voters who asked to be interviewed in Spanish were less likely to be Bush backers -- 36 percent, vs. 42 percent who did the interview in English.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26119-2004Dec25.html