NYT Column: Cruz & Rubio Not Really Latino Because Not Liberal

NewsBusters ^ | February 4, 2016 | P.J. Gladnick

[PJ-Comix]

Your last name could be Cruz or Rubio but unless you pass the stringent political tests of certain self-appointed gatekeepers, you are not authentically Latino. One such gatekeeper is Roberto Suro who wrote in a New York Times column that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio can't be considered to really be Latino because they do not subscribe to liberal identity politics. Suro details how both Cruz and Rubio have failed his political test of being what he considers to be a true Latino:

[Flavious_Maximus]

Roberto Suro is an a-hole and an idiot. As if ‘just’ being anointed a Latino is the most precious thing on earth.

Does he consider Fidel Castro, Griselda Blanco or Tomás de Torquemada Latinos?

[Southside_Chicago_Republican]

Sure. And Ben Carson isn’t black, Carly Fiorna isn’t a woman, etc.

[Robert357]

This is why Liz Warren is a native American and why the former head of the Spokane NAACP was black.

Real protected group status is only about biology when the federal government wants to force the non-protected class business to fork over money.

When it comes to politics it is all about political ideology and nothing to do with biology.

[Smokin' Joe]

Well, this explains why the halfrican is ‘black enough’

[Paladin2]

Why aren’t Eyetalians Latino? Spanyards not Hispanic?

[TChad]

Lefrtists don't consider Sarah Palin to be a "real woman" either.

The liberal bubble is inflated by lies.

[uglybiker]

Condoleeza Rice and Allen West aren’t black, either.

[GeronL]

So the Lump can still be latino though, in the eyes of the NY Times....