This article talks about LULAC organizing to voice opinions of the healthcare and how Latinos in the United States would like to see reform. Healthcare is probably the number one topic right now among American politics and will continue to be so all the way through the presidential elections. It makes sense for Latinos to mobilize their efforts to put their two cents into this topic. If new healthcare reform is every reached, which it likely won't be any time soon, it is crucial for latinos to participate because if new reform is ever reached I am sure that there will be a conflict between illegal immigrants and legal immigrants wanted to have access to healthcare.
Latino Leaders Launch Effort to Make Their Voices Heard In National and State HealthCare Debates.
LULAC Joins Forces with Health Groups to Discuss Universal HealthCare
April 17, 2008
For more information, contact:
Javier Dominguez, 202-833-6130 ext. 12
Vivian Todini, 917-747-7980
Latino leaders from the Northeast will gather at the first “Latino Voices in Universal Heath Care, A Regional Action Summit,” designed to bring Latino voices to the healthcare reform debate. The Universal Healthcare Summit will take place on Saturday, May 3rd, 9:30 am to 4 pm at the Sheraton 4-Points, at 275 Research Parkway, Meriden, Connecticut. LULAC members and friends are encouraged to participate. The Summit is free and open to the public.
The purpose of the Summit is to provide a forum for our nation’s fastest growing segment of the population to discuss policies important to their community. There is much at stake for Latinos. In Connecticut alone, while Latinos are 10 percent of the state’s population, they constitute 40 percent of the uninsured. These numbers reflect nationwide trends. The summit will feature various U.S. Senators who will join a large group of Hispanic students from around the U.S. to discuss the critical issues facing their communities in the areas of immigration, education, civil rights, judicial system amongst other issues. Latino leaders will identify opportunities for organizing and building state and national coalitions to advance the universal health care for all.
For more information, please go to http://www.latinosnhi.org/events.php or Register HERE.
Universal HealthCare Foundation of Connecticut and Latinos for National Health Insurance are the cosponsors of the event. The Host Committee includes: the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), District Council 37 (AFSCME), NY Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, The Connecticut Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission, Columbia University Center for the Health of Urban Minorities, Hispanic Center of Excellence Albert Einstein School of Medicine, Universal Health Care Action Network, NYU Center for Latino Health, National Hispanic Council on Aging, and Healthcare NOW.
The League of United Latin American Citizens advances the economic condition, educational attainment, political influence, health and civil rights of Hispanic Americans through community-based programs operating at more than 700 LULAC councils nationwide.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
MySpace's Latino portal exits beta, announces new partnerships
When looking at the title of my article you might ask yourself: why did he right about myspace and what does that have to do with the course? Well, it doesn't really relate directly to the course material. However, I think that this new version of myspace could help introduce young latinos to the American politics. Yeah, politics is a topic that usually puts kids to sleep, but with how popular myspace is I could so how young latinos may be interested in exploring new things over the net. Whether it is discovering something new about politics or just communicating with friends, it is essential that the number one online friends community adheres to not just the english speaking population, but to the only spanish speaking population as well.
MySpace's Latino portal exits beta, announces new partnerships
Posted by Caroline McCarthy | 4 comments
MySpace has unveiled the full version of its bilingual MySpace Latino homepage, which has been in a beta test phase since last year and includes content in both Spanish and English. In conjunction with the launch, MySpace additionally announced deals with a number of content partners to kick-start new interest areas on the site.
Unlike MySpace's array of internationally-focused brands, MySpace Latino is geared toward bilingual users in the U.S. The social-networking site, which has been owned by News Corp.'s Fox Interactive Media since 2005, has 9 million Hispanic members among its U.S. users.
The new "entertainment partners" in the MySpace Latino launch include the Spanish Broadcasting System, Hispanic news outlet ImpreMedia (which is powering a soccer news site, TodoFutbol), Gibson Guitar, local events site Remezcla.com, and Billboard.
Consistent with MySpace's roots as a music-based community--and perhaps to emphasize its content and media offerings as it loses ground in the social-networking sphere to smaller rivals like Facebook--the new MySpace Latino will offer interviews with Latin bands and "Secret Shows" concerts much like its English-language sibling.
MySpace's Latino portal exits beta, announces new partnerships
Posted by Caroline McCarthy | 4 comments
MySpace has unveiled the full version of its bilingual MySpace Latino homepage, which has been in a beta test phase since last year and includes content in both Spanish and English. In conjunction with the launch, MySpace additionally announced deals with a number of content partners to kick-start new interest areas on the site.
Unlike MySpace's array of internationally-focused brands, MySpace Latino is geared toward bilingual users in the U.S. The social-networking site, which has been owned by News Corp.'s Fox Interactive Media since 2005, has 9 million Hispanic members among its U.S. users.
The new "entertainment partners" in the MySpace Latino launch include the Spanish Broadcasting System, Hispanic news outlet ImpreMedia (which is powering a soccer news site, TodoFutbol), Gibson Guitar, local events site Remezcla.com, and Billboard.
Consistent with MySpace's roots as a music-based community--and perhaps to emphasize its content and media offerings as it loses ground in the social-networking sphere to smaller rivals like Facebook--the new MySpace Latino will offer interviews with Latin bands and "Secret Shows" concerts much like its English-language sibling.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
McCain Stakes Claim in New Mexico
It is really interesting that McCain is making an early stride to try and influence Latino voters. However, I think it is a great strategy on the republican side to initiate an attempt to sway the general latino public. The democrats are still undecided in nominating a candidate, so McCain could solidify some Latino votes since the democrats can't get on track. I know that generally Latinos tend to vote democrat, but this could be different. If McCain sincerely wants to appeal to Latinos he should continue to broadcast messages in spanish on spanish programming. He should also lay out his plan for dealing with immigration so Latino voters know where he stands on issues that will directly affect them. What do you guys think? Could McCain really win the Latino vote over Clinton or Obama?
McCain Stakes Claim in New Mexico
While the media is busy catering to the press releases on Gov. Bill Richardson's astonishment and surprise that the Clintons are angry with him (Breaking News: Top Politicians Share Angry Words Over Key Endorsement!!!!!) John McCain is sticking his red white and blue flag in the "Aztec Ruins" of New Mexico. I guess it was easy for most of the mainstream and not so mainstream media to miss the "movida" because McCain is making his claim on New Mexico in Spanish.
Last week America's media sweetheart, John McCain, released an ad for Spanish language TV in Gov. Bill Richardson's backyard. The ad is the same as the English language ad currently airing only the narrative is in Spanish. McCain's secret internal polling must be whispering to his advisors what the public polling has been screaming to anyone that will pull their head out of the Democratic sand: McCain has a real play among Latino voters.
While everyone may debate who the Republican Party really wanted to run against in November, one thing is clear: McCain realizes the potential advantage of an Obama campaign that still has not devoted the necessary efforts to get Latinos to warm to his candidacy.
McCain is very attuned to garnering Latino votes. In fact the road to St. McCains presidential nomination was already paved by Latinos. McCain owes his vitally important Florida win to Repub Latino voters who made up 12% of the turnout and picked him by wide margins in that state.
The scary part about the understated New Mexico effort is that it is smart and indicates that he still knows what he is doing. Usually a direct translation of any marketing ad from English to Spanish is awkward and ill-advised. Not this time. The McCain bio ad that touts his Vietnam experience will play extremely well with Latinos. Latinos have a deeply held commitment to military service and a highly patriotic inner chord that the McCain lobbyists/consultants strike with the ad. In fact the ad may play better in Spanish than in English.
But the real reason that Democrats should worry is that the GOP presidential campaign seems to know the issues that resonate with Latino voters. McCain press secretary Brooke Buchanan recently said about her candidates Latino outreach: "His positions on issues like education, the economy and others resonate with Hispanic voters and we continue to ask for their vote and we will campaign aggressively for it." Education and the economy are key issues for Latino voters and have been for as long as Latinos have been polled. McCain knows it. Do Democrats?
To his credit, DNC Chair Howard Dean has done the best job in DNC history of addressing the Latino electorate. That being said, Dean is not in the position to single-handedly construct the serious effort it will take to stop McCain's encroachment into the Latino voter base. It will take real effort from the DNC but Deans team will need to be bolstered by independent efforts of 527's and yes even the eventual nominee.
The current media dust up on Richardson being dissed makes for entertaining chatter. But while the Clinton /Richardson chatter echoes through the blogosphere McCains words are echoing through the native ruins, canyons, and cliffs of New Mexico.
McCain Stakes Claim in New Mexico
While the media is busy catering to the press releases on Gov. Bill Richardson's astonishment and surprise that the Clintons are angry with him (Breaking News: Top Politicians Share Angry Words Over Key Endorsement!!!!!) John McCain is sticking his red white and blue flag in the "Aztec Ruins" of New Mexico. I guess it was easy for most of the mainstream and not so mainstream media to miss the "movida" because McCain is making his claim on New Mexico in Spanish.
Last week America's media sweetheart, John McCain, released an ad for Spanish language TV in Gov. Bill Richardson's backyard. The ad is the same as the English language ad currently airing only the narrative is in Spanish. McCain's secret internal polling must be whispering to his advisors what the public polling has been screaming to anyone that will pull their head out of the Democratic sand: McCain has a real play among Latino voters.
While everyone may debate who the Republican Party really wanted to run against in November, one thing is clear: McCain realizes the potential advantage of an Obama campaign that still has not devoted the necessary efforts to get Latinos to warm to his candidacy.
McCain is very attuned to garnering Latino votes. In fact the road to St. McCains presidential nomination was already paved by Latinos. McCain owes his vitally important Florida win to Repub Latino voters who made up 12% of the turnout and picked him by wide margins in that state.
The scary part about the understated New Mexico effort is that it is smart and indicates that he still knows what he is doing. Usually a direct translation of any marketing ad from English to Spanish is awkward and ill-advised. Not this time. The McCain bio ad that touts his Vietnam experience will play extremely well with Latinos. Latinos have a deeply held commitment to military service and a highly patriotic inner chord that the McCain lobbyists/consultants strike with the ad. In fact the ad may play better in Spanish than in English.
But the real reason that Democrats should worry is that the GOP presidential campaign seems to know the issues that resonate with Latino voters. McCain press secretary Brooke Buchanan recently said about her candidates Latino outreach: "His positions on issues like education, the economy and others resonate with Hispanic voters and we continue to ask for their vote and we will campaign aggressively for it." Education and the economy are key issues for Latino voters and have been for as long as Latinos have been polled. McCain knows it. Do Democrats?
To his credit, DNC Chair Howard Dean has done the best job in DNC history of addressing the Latino electorate. That being said, Dean is not in the position to single-handedly construct the serious effort it will take to stop McCain's encroachment into the Latino voter base. It will take real effort from the DNC but Deans team will need to be bolstered by independent efforts of 527's and yes even the eventual nominee.
The current media dust up on Richardson being dissed makes for entertaining chatter. But while the Clinton /Richardson chatter echoes through the blogosphere McCains words are echoing through the native ruins, canyons, and cliffs of New Mexico.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Article Falsely Claiming Obama, Clinton, McCain All Agree on Immigration
Chicago Tribune falsely claimed Clinton, Obama, and McCain "essentially agree" on immigration
In an article on immigration as a campaign issue, the Chicago Tribune reported that Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain "essentially agree on the need for an overhaul of U.S. Immigration law that would combine increased border enforcement with a new guest-worker program and measures to permit the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country to eventually apply for citizenship." In fact, McCain has said he "would not" support his original comprehensive immigration proposal if it came to a vote on the Senate floor and now says that "we've got to secure the borders first."
I don't see how anyone could assume that these three politicians have the same views on the immigration policies in the United States. Clinton and Obama's views are somewhat similar, but McCain is definitely in the same boat as the two democrat hopefuls. Strict immigration policies and republican party values go hand in hand, it would be hard make the argument that McCain would every loosen his views. Even though he does have a tendancy to be sort of a political maverick, if he were elected I don't think Republican party leaders and constiuents would want MccCain to loosen border security. However, that's why the democrats need to get their act together and solidify a candidate. We need a strong candidate to run against a formidable McCain. I don't think I can handle another four years of republican fascism.
In a March 24 Chicago Tribune article on immigration as a campaign issue, correspondent Howard Witt claimed that Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain "have little to debate on the topic." As evidence, Witt falsely reported that the three presidential hopefuls "essentially agree on the need for an overhaul of U.S. Immigration law that would combine increased border enforcement with a new guest-worker program and measures to permit the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country to eventually apply for citizenship." In fact, unlike Clinton and Obama, McCain has abandoned his previous support for comprehensive immigration legislation. McCain asserted on January 30 that he "would not" support his original comprehensive immigration proposal if it came to a vote on the Senate floor and now says that "we've got to secure the borders first" -- a position at odds with his prior assertion that border security could not be disaggregated from other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform without being rendered ineffective.
McCain also reversed his position on the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, which would have allowed "illegal immigrants under age 30 to remain in the United States and gain legal status if they attend college or join the military." Clinton and Obama have both voted for the DREAM Act, and support its enactment.
While Witt wrote that "[i]mmigration reformers say the victory of the more moderate McCain over several Republican primary rivals who favored strict Immigration crackdowns proves that the campaign against illegal immigrants has backfired," he did not report McCain's reversal on a key aspect of comprehensive immigration reform -- whether border security can be addressed separately from other components -- which more closely aligned him with the base of the Republican Party. A November 4, 2007, Associated Press article on the change in McCain's position reported that his prior support for comprehensive immigration reform "hurt him politically" and quoted McCain as stating: "I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift. ... I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders." In his February 7 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), McCain also asserted that "[o]n the issue of illegal immigration, a position which provoked the outspoken opposition of many conservatives, I stood my ground aware that my position would imperil my campaign." After claiming that "we failed" on immigration, McCain stated: "I accept that, and have pledged that it would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration."
Though Witt reported that "[m]embers of Congress tried and failed, in 2006 and 2007, to enact such immigration reforms, some of them co-sponsored by McCain and Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy," he did not mention that McCain said during CNN's January 30 Republican presidential debate that he "would not" support his own bill if it came to a vote in the Senate:
JANET HOOK (Los Angeles Times staff writer): What I'm wondering is, and you seem to be downplaying that part, at this point, if your original proposal came to a vote in the Senate floor, would you vote for it?
McCAIN: It won't. It won't. That's why we went through the debate.
HOOK: I know, but what if it did?
McCAIN: No, I would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the border secured first. And so to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate, it won't. We went through various amendments which prevented that ever, that proposal.
Numerous media outlets have noted McCain's previous support for comprehensive immigration reform without noting that he has since changed his position.
In contrast to the Tribune's and other reports, The New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller reported on March 3 that McCain "moved from his original position on immigration" and "went so far at a debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in January to say that if his original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, he would not vote for it."
From the March 24 Chicago Tribune article:
Illegal Immigration, a hot-button populist issue that many experts had expected to top the nation's political concerns this year, has largely vanished from the presidential campaign amid waning interest from voters and mounting delays in constructing a 670-mile border fence between the United States and Mexico.
Moreover, primary results and opinion polls in recent months indicate that the Republican Party's emphasis on a crackdown against illegal immigrants may be driving many Hispanic voters -- a crucial electoral bloc in November's election -- into the Democratic fold.
"For any candidates anywhere in the country, I don't think it's demonstrated that combating illegal Immigration is an issue that controls people's votes," said David Hill, a leading Republican pollster in Houston who has termed illegal Immigration a "dud issue" for his party. "Immigration is unlike health care or the economy, both of which have a more intimate impact on people's lives."
At the presidential level, the three remaining contenders have little to debate on the topic. Sens. John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama all essentially agree on the need for an overhaul of U.S. Immigration law that would combine increased border enforcement with a new guest-worker program and measures to permit the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country to eventually apply for citizenship.
Members of Congress tried and failed, in 2006 and 2007, to enact such Immigration reforms, some of them co-sponsored by McCain and Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy. The initiatives were derailed by strong grass-roots opposition to provisions that many conservatives regarded as amnesty for foreigners who have broken American Immigration laws.
Now, however, anti-Immigration activists, chagrined that their issue is sputtering at the national level as American voters turn their attention to the faltering economy, are resigning themselves to the likelihood that the next occupant of the White House, either Democrat or Republican, may well try to resurrect an Immigration compromise.
[...]
For their part, Immigration reformers say the victory of the more moderate McCain over several Republican primary rivals who favored strict Immigration crackdowns proves that the campaign against illegal immigrants has backfired.
"The whole point of the hard-core anti-immigrant stance was to galvanize Republican voters and turn them out," said Cecilia Munoz, senior vice president of the National Council of La Raza, a leading Hispanic civil rights group. "It did not galvanize the voters who were the intended targets, but it sure galvanized Latino voters. We have tripled our electoral turnout this year."
—E.H.H.
In an article on immigration as a campaign issue, the Chicago Tribune reported that Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain "essentially agree on the need for an overhaul of U.S. Immigration law that would combine increased border enforcement with a new guest-worker program and measures to permit the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country to eventually apply for citizenship." In fact, McCain has said he "would not" support his original comprehensive immigration proposal if it came to a vote on the Senate floor and now says that "we've got to secure the borders first."
I don't see how anyone could assume that these three politicians have the same views on the immigration policies in the United States. Clinton and Obama's views are somewhat similar, but McCain is definitely in the same boat as the two democrat hopefuls. Strict immigration policies and republican party values go hand in hand, it would be hard make the argument that McCain would every loosen his views. Even though he does have a tendancy to be sort of a political maverick, if he were elected I don't think Republican party leaders and constiuents would want MccCain to loosen border security. However, that's why the democrats need to get their act together and solidify a candidate. We need a strong candidate to run against a formidable McCain. I don't think I can handle another four years of republican fascism.
In a March 24 Chicago Tribune article on immigration as a campaign issue, correspondent Howard Witt claimed that Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain "have little to debate on the topic." As evidence, Witt falsely reported that the three presidential hopefuls "essentially agree on the need for an overhaul of U.S. Immigration law that would combine increased border enforcement with a new guest-worker program and measures to permit the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country to eventually apply for citizenship." In fact, unlike Clinton and Obama, McCain has abandoned his previous support for comprehensive immigration legislation. McCain asserted on January 30 that he "would not" support his original comprehensive immigration proposal if it came to a vote on the Senate floor and now says that "we've got to secure the borders first" -- a position at odds with his prior assertion that border security could not be disaggregated from other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform without being rendered ineffective.
McCain also reversed his position on the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, which would have allowed "illegal immigrants under age 30 to remain in the United States and gain legal status if they attend college or join the military." Clinton and Obama have both voted for the DREAM Act, and support its enactment.
While Witt wrote that "[i]mmigration reformers say the victory of the more moderate McCain over several Republican primary rivals who favored strict Immigration crackdowns proves that the campaign against illegal immigrants has backfired," he did not report McCain's reversal on a key aspect of comprehensive immigration reform -- whether border security can be addressed separately from other components -- which more closely aligned him with the base of the Republican Party. A November 4, 2007, Associated Press article on the change in McCain's position reported that his prior support for comprehensive immigration reform "hurt him politically" and quoted McCain as stating: "I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift. ... I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders." In his February 7 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), McCain also asserted that "[o]n the issue of illegal immigration, a position which provoked the outspoken opposition of many conservatives, I stood my ground aware that my position would imperil my campaign." After claiming that "we failed" on immigration, McCain stated: "I accept that, and have pledged that it would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration."
Though Witt reported that "[m]embers of Congress tried and failed, in 2006 and 2007, to enact such immigration reforms, some of them co-sponsored by McCain and Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy," he did not mention that McCain said during CNN's January 30 Republican presidential debate that he "would not" support his own bill if it came to a vote in the Senate:
JANET HOOK (Los Angeles Times staff writer): What I'm wondering is, and you seem to be downplaying that part, at this point, if your original proposal came to a vote in the Senate floor, would you vote for it?
McCAIN: It won't. It won't. That's why we went through the debate.
HOOK: I know, but what if it did?
McCAIN: No, I would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the border secured first. And so to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate, it won't. We went through various amendments which prevented that ever, that proposal.
Numerous media outlets have noted McCain's previous support for comprehensive immigration reform without noting that he has since changed his position.
In contrast to the Tribune's and other reports, The New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller reported on March 3 that McCain "moved from his original position on immigration" and "went so far at a debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in January to say that if his original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, he would not vote for it."
From the March 24 Chicago Tribune article:
Illegal Immigration, a hot-button populist issue that many experts had expected to top the nation's political concerns this year, has largely vanished from the presidential campaign amid waning interest from voters and mounting delays in constructing a 670-mile border fence between the United States and Mexico.
Moreover, primary results and opinion polls in recent months indicate that the Republican Party's emphasis on a crackdown against illegal immigrants may be driving many Hispanic voters -- a crucial electoral bloc in November's election -- into the Democratic fold.
"For any candidates anywhere in the country, I don't think it's demonstrated that combating illegal Immigration is an issue that controls people's votes," said David Hill, a leading Republican pollster in Houston who has termed illegal Immigration a "dud issue" for his party. "Immigration is unlike health care or the economy, both of which have a more intimate impact on people's lives."
At the presidential level, the three remaining contenders have little to debate on the topic. Sens. John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama all essentially agree on the need for an overhaul of U.S. Immigration law that would combine increased border enforcement with a new guest-worker program and measures to permit the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country to eventually apply for citizenship.
Members of Congress tried and failed, in 2006 and 2007, to enact such Immigration reforms, some of them co-sponsored by McCain and Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy. The initiatives were derailed by strong grass-roots opposition to provisions that many conservatives regarded as amnesty for foreigners who have broken American Immigration laws.
Now, however, anti-Immigration activists, chagrined that their issue is sputtering at the national level as American voters turn their attention to the faltering economy, are resigning themselves to the likelihood that the next occupant of the White House, either Democrat or Republican, may well try to resurrect an Immigration compromise.
[...]
For their part, Immigration reformers say the victory of the more moderate McCain over several Republican primary rivals who favored strict Immigration crackdowns proves that the campaign against illegal immigrants has backfired.
"The whole point of the hard-core anti-immigrant stance was to galvanize Republican voters and turn them out," said Cecilia Munoz, senior vice president of the National Council of La Raza, a leading Hispanic civil rights group. "It did not galvanize the voters who were the intended targets, but it sure galvanized Latino voters. We have tripled our electoral turnout this year."
—E.H.H.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Puerto Rico’s Political Melodrama Plays On, With Its Governor in the Lead Role
Recently Aníbal S. Acevedo Vilá, governor of Puerto Rico, has come under investigation for accusations of violating campaign finance regulations. This story is of high relevance because Acevedo is up for reelection this year and because, according to the article and also what we have talked about in class, Puerto Rico is a place where politics infuses the culture and goes to the heart of Puerto Rican identity. Acevedo is a a Democrat who has recently endorsed democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. It has been speculated that this could possibly cause some problems for Obama.
It seems like corruption in politics is inevitable no matter what party, race or country is involved. However, I personally always tend to remember Republicans being more responsible for violating finance rules, not usually Democrats. It is interesting that Acevedo endorsed Obama. Maybe this was done hoping that if Obama is elected into office, Acevedo could receive help from Obama.
I personally get sick of hearing about constant corruption in government, it makes me wonder would it ever be possible to experience politics without corruption?
SAN JUAN, P.R. — The rumors wash up against the gray walls of La Fortaleza, the governor’s palace in this city’s quarter, with the regularity of the ocean’s waves. Every few weeks they seem to gather momentum, like a tidal surge, and threaten to overwhelm the place and its occupant, Gov. Aníbal S. Acevedo Vilá.
Enlarge This Image
Brennan Linsley/Associated Press
Gov. Aníbal S. Acevedo Vilá of Puerto Rico after delivering a speech last month on the state of the territory.
At one moment, the word on the street is that the governor will be arrested before the weekend. At the next, he will be spared, though several of his close associates will fall.
And so it has gone for more than two years while federal investigators have looked into accusations of campaign finance violations relating to Mr. Acevedo, a Democrat, who is up for re-election this year.
The case has captured the imagination of Puerto Rico’s political class and news media, which have tracked every microscopic development in the investigation with the intensity befitting a place where politics infuses the culture and goes to the heart of Puerto Rican identity.
No movement of the federal grand jury reviewing the evidence has gone undetected, the comings and goings of witnesses have been recorded by the media and analyzed ad nauseam, and leaks abound.
“You can’t spend half an hour in a meeting of politically minded people without someone saying, ‘O.K., who’s going to be indicted, when is he going to be indicted?’ ” said Juan Manuel García Passalacqua, a well-known political analyst and lawyer here. “It’s incredible. Every day, man. One gets sick of it. Ugh!”
Yet Mr. García is one of the engines of the gossip mill. The subject frequently crops up on his radio talk show, as it did during a broadcast earlier this month, when he mentioned an article from that morning in El Vocero. The newspaper had reported that Mary Butler, a Justice Department lawyer who had successfully prosecuted other high-profile public corruption cases on the island, had gotten involved in the Acevedo investigation.
“This is a total surprise for everyone in this country,” Mr. García said after the broadcast, in an interview at the radio station, WKAQ, 580 AM. “Everyone knows she is eminently capable. This is big!”
The governor’s endorsement of Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, earlier this month also generated a whirlwind of theories about how it might affect both men’s campaigns.
Some people speculated that the Obama campaign, mindful of the cloud hanging over Mr. Acevedo’s head, might distance itself from the governor. Others contended that the governor, betting on an Obama victory in the primaries and in the general election, was laying the groundwork for help from the White House should he be indicted.
Residents of the commonwealth do not vote in general elections, but the final Democratic caucus is in Puerto Rico, on June 7, with 63 delegates at stake.
Luis Russi, a public defender and law professor here, said that deep down most people did not really care what happened to the governor. They simply enjoyed throwing a few punches in this political brawl.
“Politics is like sport here,” Mr. Russi said. “Here everyone has something to say. Everyone knows. Everyone wants to participate. Everyone has an opinion.”
“We’re Latino,” he continued. “We have a lot of passion. We love! We hate! A lot!”
The federal authorities have refused to make any statements about the case; what is known publicly about the investigation has been gleaned through leaks and the scant information provided by witnesses who have testified before the grand jury. According to those witnesses, investigators have asked about the finances of Mr. Acevedo’s 2004 race for governor and about his successful campaign in 2000 to become the resident commissioner, Puerto Rico’s nonvoting delegate to Congress. (Mr. Acevedo has said that if there were improprieties in his campaigns, he was not aware of them.)
According to news reports in Puerto Rico and Philadelphia, investigators are examining whether major donors laundered contributions by listing them under other people’s names in order to circumvent contribution limits. In addition, they are looking into accusations that some companies were given government contracts in exchange for campaign contributions. The Philadelphia Inquirer has reported that investigators have focused some of their inquiry in Pennsylvania and southern New Jersey, where Mr. Acevedo received large contributions.
The island’s political parties and politicians have exuberantly used the fact of the investigation to further their ambitions.
It seems like corruption in politics is inevitable no matter what party, race or country is involved. However, I personally always tend to remember Republicans being more responsible for violating finance rules, not usually Democrats. It is interesting that Acevedo endorsed Obama. Maybe this was done hoping that if Obama is elected into office, Acevedo could receive help from Obama.
I personally get sick of hearing about constant corruption in government, it makes me wonder would it ever be possible to experience politics without corruption?
SAN JUAN, P.R. — The rumors wash up against the gray walls of La Fortaleza, the governor’s palace in this city’s quarter, with the regularity of the ocean’s waves. Every few weeks they seem to gather momentum, like a tidal surge, and threaten to overwhelm the place and its occupant, Gov. Aníbal S. Acevedo Vilá.
Enlarge This Image
Brennan Linsley/Associated Press
Gov. Aníbal S. Acevedo Vilá of Puerto Rico after delivering a speech last month on the state of the territory.
At one moment, the word on the street is that the governor will be arrested before the weekend. At the next, he will be spared, though several of his close associates will fall.
And so it has gone for more than two years while federal investigators have looked into accusations of campaign finance violations relating to Mr. Acevedo, a Democrat, who is up for re-election this year.
The case has captured the imagination of Puerto Rico’s political class and news media, which have tracked every microscopic development in the investigation with the intensity befitting a place where politics infuses the culture and goes to the heart of Puerto Rican identity.
No movement of the federal grand jury reviewing the evidence has gone undetected, the comings and goings of witnesses have been recorded by the media and analyzed ad nauseam, and leaks abound.
“You can’t spend half an hour in a meeting of politically minded people without someone saying, ‘O.K., who’s going to be indicted, when is he going to be indicted?’ ” said Juan Manuel García Passalacqua, a well-known political analyst and lawyer here. “It’s incredible. Every day, man. One gets sick of it. Ugh!”
Yet Mr. García is one of the engines of the gossip mill. The subject frequently crops up on his radio talk show, as it did during a broadcast earlier this month, when he mentioned an article from that morning in El Vocero. The newspaper had reported that Mary Butler, a Justice Department lawyer who had successfully prosecuted other high-profile public corruption cases on the island, had gotten involved in the Acevedo investigation.
“This is a total surprise for everyone in this country,” Mr. García said after the broadcast, in an interview at the radio station, WKAQ, 580 AM. “Everyone knows she is eminently capable. This is big!”
The governor’s endorsement of Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, earlier this month also generated a whirlwind of theories about how it might affect both men’s campaigns.
Some people speculated that the Obama campaign, mindful of the cloud hanging over Mr. Acevedo’s head, might distance itself from the governor. Others contended that the governor, betting on an Obama victory in the primaries and in the general election, was laying the groundwork for help from the White House should he be indicted.
Residents of the commonwealth do not vote in general elections, but the final Democratic caucus is in Puerto Rico, on June 7, with 63 delegates at stake.
Luis Russi, a public defender and law professor here, said that deep down most people did not really care what happened to the governor. They simply enjoyed throwing a few punches in this political brawl.
“Politics is like sport here,” Mr. Russi said. “Here everyone has something to say. Everyone knows. Everyone wants to participate. Everyone has an opinion.”
“We’re Latino,” he continued. “We have a lot of passion. We love! We hate! A lot!”
The federal authorities have refused to make any statements about the case; what is known publicly about the investigation has been gleaned through leaks and the scant information provided by witnesses who have testified before the grand jury. According to those witnesses, investigators have asked about the finances of Mr. Acevedo’s 2004 race for governor and about his successful campaign in 2000 to become the resident commissioner, Puerto Rico’s nonvoting delegate to Congress. (Mr. Acevedo has said that if there were improprieties in his campaigns, he was not aware of them.)
According to news reports in Puerto Rico and Philadelphia, investigators are examining whether major donors laundered contributions by listing them under other people’s names in order to circumvent contribution limits. In addition, they are looking into accusations that some companies were given government contracts in exchange for campaign contributions. The Philadelphia Inquirer has reported that investigators have focused some of their inquiry in Pennsylvania and southern New Jersey, where Mr. Acevedo received large contributions.
The island’s political parties and politicians have exuberantly used the fact of the investigation to further their ambitions.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Latinos Should Vote for Obama
I a previous blog, I wrote that Latinos should consider Presidential candidate Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. Now, as the race for nomination is winding down, Latino voters in both Texas and Ohio could play a major role in deciding who wins the nomination. Obama is currently ahead and looks like the favorite, but if Clinton could somehow pull of upsets in these two states and will a little help from the super delegates, she just might be able to comeback and beat Obama. While I definitely don't want this to happen, it seems that some Latino voters are now changing their minds as well. Do you guys think that Clinton will be able to win in Texas and or Ohio? If she doesn't, then Barack will surely win the nomination.
Why Have Latinos Started Voting For Obama?
Connecticut, the first state where they did, provides some instructive clues.
By Melinda Tuhus
Share Digg del.icio.us Reddit Newsvine
As Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton head into the key Ohio and Texas primaries on Tuesday, March 4, each candidate is looking to shore up the support of Latinos, whose votes will be crucial to victory. Latino supporters of Obama in Connecticut say they have valuable lessons to share, since they pulled off the first victory among Latinos for Obama in a primary, back on Feb. 5, Super Tuesday.
The big Latino push for Obama in Connecticut started late in the game, only a couple of weeks before the primary, when it became clear that Connecticut would matter in the race for delegates and for bragging rights in racking up state victories. Clinton and Obama went into Super Tuesday evenly matched, but since then he’s made a clean sweep of successive primaries, making Ohio and Texas must-wins for Clinton, and the Latino vote even more critical.
When Latinos in Connecticut realized the state was in play, elected and appointed officials at the state and city level, as well as well-known Latinos in the private sector, initiated a grassroots effort in which they localized, and in some cases translated into Spanish, some standard campaign material.
Kica Matos, a top mayoral aide in New Haven, is well-known and respected in the Latino community for her leading role in creating the Elm City I.D., the nation’s first municipal resident card that specifically covers the undocumented. She and others believed that outreach by local Latinos to other Latinos would be key to turnout. “The story wasn’t some national mailing that you got that came from the campaign,” Matos says. “It really was dialogue and communications from people who live in this community about why it was that we supported Barack. We talked to people, we went in the neighborhoods.”
From the Obama campaign’s Hartford office, volunteer organizer Ed Vargas coordinated the state’s Latinos for Obama group, which he called a mostly home-grown effort. “African Americans reached out to us, and we decided to do what we could do help them,” Vargas says. A 35-year educator in Hartford public schools, which have an overwhelmingly black and Latino student body, Vargas saw the Obama campaign as a historic opportunity for young people to see that anybody could grow up to become president. Latino for Obama’s goal was to counteract the presumed Latino support for Clinton, which he said was based in large part on endorsements from well-known Hispanics at the national level. Vargas says the Obama campaign in the state was short on all kinds of materials, and specifically on outreach to Latinos. “One of the complaints by the Spanish media was that Hillary had been advertising for weeks, and the Obama campaign was putting nothing in Spanish.”
Activists went door to door with a localized flyer that focused on the themes of health care and immigration. New Haven alderman Joey Rodriguez says they also distributed a flyer featuring Obama’s story of how he came to embrace Christianity. “We went out on Sundays and tried to flood as many churches as possible,” he says, “from putting flyers on the windshields of cars to actually speaking to individuals walking out of church, to let them know where we stand as Hispanic leaders, and where we stand as far as endorsing a presidential candidate.”
While some of the organizers said it was easy to win over Latino voters to the Obama column, once they knew about his positions calling for health care and immigration reform, Rodriguez says otherwise. “It wasn’t like every door I knocked on they were pro-Obama and I moved on,” he says. “There were quite a few doors where residents said, ‘I’m leaning toward Clinton.’ They wanted to support Clinton, but when I sat down with them as a person they trust, because they put their trust in me last election, they knew I was going to tell them straight-forward.”
Edwin Martinez is a case in point. Asked over e-mail why he switched to Obama, Martinez wrote, “I think both Democratic candidates are the right candidates and I would love to see a combination of both leading this country. At first I was leaning towards Mrs. Clinton especially because of her health care plan. When Joey and I spoke he made me aware that Mr. Obama too has a health care plan and that Obama will fight to keep jobs in this country verses sending them overseas. Mr. Obama wants to give tax breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America. As a person in the manufacturing sector myself, I’ve seen first-hand jobs lost here because they were exported. It is a serious issue that deserves national attention. I know the change Mr. Obama promises would not be done overnight but I but believe it is time for change and he’s the person for the job.”
Yale political scientist Donald Green did the first studies back in the 1980s showing that people tend to respond better to get out the vote efforts when reached out to by local people who may have more in common with them than, say, hundreds of activists bused in from other states, as Howard Dean learned to his dismay in Iowa in 2004. Green says that this kind of localized outreach could be most effective in mobilizing the Latino vote.
“Oftentimes, Latino voters are left out of voter mobilization drives because they are considered low propensity voters, and campaigns want to talk to high propensity voters, they want to persuade people who are very likely to vote,” Green says. “But what differentiates low propensity voters from high propensity voters is sometimes the attention that is paid to them over a series of elections.”
Ultimately, Obama won 53 percent of the Latino vote in Connecticut. For the microcosmic view, in the two most heavily (and neighboring) Latino wards of New Haven, voters went 180 to 159 for Obama in Rodriguez’s ward, and 190 to 135 for Clinton in a ward where little or no outreach was done, which is suggestive that the outreach by local leaders works.
According to a Feb. 15 blog post by ABC News pollster Gary Langer, exit polls indicate that Hispanics accounted for 14 percent of all votes cast in 2008 primaries up to that time (and helped Obama win Virginia a week after Connecticut). He added that in 2004 they accounted for a quarter of the 2004 Democratic primary turnout in Texas.
On Feb. 22, Obama was endorsed by the Change to Win Coalition, many of whose seven constituent members have significant Latino participation. These developments—along with the momentum his 11 consecutive wins since Super Tuesday provides—could help Obama score victories in Texas and Ohio.
Why Have Latinos Started Voting For Obama?
Connecticut, the first state where they did, provides some instructive clues.
By Melinda Tuhus
Share Digg del.icio.us Reddit Newsvine
As Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton head into the key Ohio and Texas primaries on Tuesday, March 4, each candidate is looking to shore up the support of Latinos, whose votes will be crucial to victory. Latino supporters of Obama in Connecticut say they have valuable lessons to share, since they pulled off the first victory among Latinos for Obama in a primary, back on Feb. 5, Super Tuesday.
The big Latino push for Obama in Connecticut started late in the game, only a couple of weeks before the primary, when it became clear that Connecticut would matter in the race for delegates and for bragging rights in racking up state victories. Clinton and Obama went into Super Tuesday evenly matched, but since then he’s made a clean sweep of successive primaries, making Ohio and Texas must-wins for Clinton, and the Latino vote even more critical.
When Latinos in Connecticut realized the state was in play, elected and appointed officials at the state and city level, as well as well-known Latinos in the private sector, initiated a grassroots effort in which they localized, and in some cases translated into Spanish, some standard campaign material.
Kica Matos, a top mayoral aide in New Haven, is well-known and respected in the Latino community for her leading role in creating the Elm City I.D., the nation’s first municipal resident card that specifically covers the undocumented. She and others believed that outreach by local Latinos to other Latinos would be key to turnout. “The story wasn’t some national mailing that you got that came from the campaign,” Matos says. “It really was dialogue and communications from people who live in this community about why it was that we supported Barack. We talked to people, we went in the neighborhoods.”
From the Obama campaign’s Hartford office, volunteer organizer Ed Vargas coordinated the state’s Latinos for Obama group, which he called a mostly home-grown effort. “African Americans reached out to us, and we decided to do what we could do help them,” Vargas says. A 35-year educator in Hartford public schools, which have an overwhelmingly black and Latino student body, Vargas saw the Obama campaign as a historic opportunity for young people to see that anybody could grow up to become president. Latino for Obama’s goal was to counteract the presumed Latino support for Clinton, which he said was based in large part on endorsements from well-known Hispanics at the national level. Vargas says the Obama campaign in the state was short on all kinds of materials, and specifically on outreach to Latinos. “One of the complaints by the Spanish media was that Hillary had been advertising for weeks, and the Obama campaign was putting nothing in Spanish.”
Activists went door to door with a localized flyer that focused on the themes of health care and immigration. New Haven alderman Joey Rodriguez says they also distributed a flyer featuring Obama’s story of how he came to embrace Christianity. “We went out on Sundays and tried to flood as many churches as possible,” he says, “from putting flyers on the windshields of cars to actually speaking to individuals walking out of church, to let them know where we stand as Hispanic leaders, and where we stand as far as endorsing a presidential candidate.”
While some of the organizers said it was easy to win over Latino voters to the Obama column, once they knew about his positions calling for health care and immigration reform, Rodriguez says otherwise. “It wasn’t like every door I knocked on they were pro-Obama and I moved on,” he says. “There were quite a few doors where residents said, ‘I’m leaning toward Clinton.’ They wanted to support Clinton, but when I sat down with them as a person they trust, because they put their trust in me last election, they knew I was going to tell them straight-forward.”
Edwin Martinez is a case in point. Asked over e-mail why he switched to Obama, Martinez wrote, “I think both Democratic candidates are the right candidates and I would love to see a combination of both leading this country. At first I was leaning towards Mrs. Clinton especially because of her health care plan. When Joey and I spoke he made me aware that Mr. Obama too has a health care plan and that Obama will fight to keep jobs in this country verses sending them overseas. Mr. Obama wants to give tax breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America. As a person in the manufacturing sector myself, I’ve seen first-hand jobs lost here because they were exported. It is a serious issue that deserves national attention. I know the change Mr. Obama promises would not be done overnight but I but believe it is time for change and he’s the person for the job.”
Yale political scientist Donald Green did the first studies back in the 1980s showing that people tend to respond better to get out the vote efforts when reached out to by local people who may have more in common with them than, say, hundreds of activists bused in from other states, as Howard Dean learned to his dismay in Iowa in 2004. Green says that this kind of localized outreach could be most effective in mobilizing the Latino vote.
“Oftentimes, Latino voters are left out of voter mobilization drives because they are considered low propensity voters, and campaigns want to talk to high propensity voters, they want to persuade people who are very likely to vote,” Green says. “But what differentiates low propensity voters from high propensity voters is sometimes the attention that is paid to them over a series of elections.”
Ultimately, Obama won 53 percent of the Latino vote in Connecticut. For the microcosmic view, in the two most heavily (and neighboring) Latino wards of New Haven, voters went 180 to 159 for Obama in Rodriguez’s ward, and 190 to 135 for Clinton in a ward where little or no outreach was done, which is suggestive that the outreach by local leaders works.
According to a Feb. 15 blog post by ABC News pollster Gary Langer, exit polls indicate that Hispanics accounted for 14 percent of all votes cast in 2008 primaries up to that time (and helped Obama win Virginia a week after Connecticut). He added that in 2004 they accounted for a quarter of the 2004 Democratic primary turnout in Texas.
On Feb. 22, Obama was endorsed by the Change to Win Coalition, many of whose seven constituent members have significant Latino participation. These developments—along with the momentum his 11 consecutive wins since Super Tuesday provides—could help Obama score victories in Texas and Ohio.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Latinos must reconsider Obama
With the primary elections well under way, many Democrats are wondering who will win the Democratic Party nomination: Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. While John McCain seems to be front runner on the Republican side, Obama and Clinton are still pushing to win decisive delegates votes. The question is who would have a better chance to defeat the Republicans in the 2008 election? According to some, the ethnicity and gender makeup of individuals will determine who will vote for Obama and who will vote for Clinton. Obama obviously overwelmingly wins the black vote and Clinton has usually won the majority of the female vote, but who should Latinos vote for? Surprisingly, most Latinos support Senator Clinton over Senator Obama. This decision ranges from various factors such as experience and ability to relate to the Latino community.
However, I think Latino voters should reconsider. Hillary doesn't have that much more experience in the Senate. In fact, the only thing that she really has in terms of experience over Obama is the fact the she was the first lady. There is no way that should be considered something that should put her over the top of Obama. First off, it would be impossible for Obama to ever be the first lady. Second, it doesn't really mean anything because it is nothing more than a symbolic position anyhow. I don't understand how Latinos feel like they relate more to Clinton rather than obama. While Hillary was working as a corporate lawyer defending companies like WAL MART (which treats immigrants as expendable labor rather than people) Obama was working as a community organizer for poverty stricken inner city areas in Chicago. There are many other reasons in the article below that list why Latinos should consider supporting Obama. Check it out for yourself.
Latinos must reconsider Obama
February 15, 2008 - 7:25am
By GUS CHAVEZ
Hispanic Link
Much is being said in the media, town-hall meetings and rallies about Latinos choosing between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama as the next president of our country. Some pundits, Latinos included, predict the longtime "rift" between Latinos and blacks will come into play.
I disagree with those who buy into this so-called racial division. We should challenge that old view every time we hear or read about it.
Some also say the "older" working-class generation of Latino Democrats will go along with Clinton because of the Clintons' connection with our community. The reference has some truth to it, but it is a hollow truth that leaves much to be desired.
In contrast, these same pundits say Obama is relatively young and new to the political realities of our country and even less knowledgeable about the needs of Latinos. They point to his lack of experience on global matters as something that could set us back internationally.
Well, maybe yes, maybe no. Then again, how much of a setback can it be, measured against our downward spiral under George W. Bush. There is no place to go but up in our standing -- up in world affairs, up in our economy, up in citizen participation and certainly up in hope for a better future, away from the class, racial and religious divisiveness of the last seven years.
Insofar as Latinos are concerned, Obama may not know how to speak Spanish, but he is not alone. Many, many Latinos don't, either.
He is not an immigrant from Latin America. Here again, he is not alone. We Latinos are increasingly second-, third- or fourth-generation.
Obama is the biracial son of a white woman and African man. Bottom line, he is a U.S. citizen who knows the sentiments of our community.
He has worked organizing with Latinos in Chicago. He has experienced the pressures faced by the working class and has consistently fought the challenges posed by racism and exclusion.
When I see Obama and hear him speak of his vision for our country, it reminds me of where I walked 43 years ago, on a picket line with the United Farm Workers in front of a Safeway store in San Diego.
I was 21 years old, in the Navy and excited to be involved fighting for the rights of farmworkers under the leadership of Cesar Chavez. While the store no longer exists at that site, I am still reminded of the first of many "political" activities I would engage in.
After serving in the Navy for four years, I joined the social-justice fight for inclusion of Chicanos and Latinos in education, health, economic development and our political representation at all levels of government. I was involved in the founding of many local, state and national civil-rights organizations representing the interests and rights of Latinos and low-income students.
I share this background with you so that you will understand where I am coming from with my public endorsement of a political candidate.
My experience is not unique when compared with other Chicano/Latino social-justice activists who rose up in the late '60s and those who continued with the fight since then. I attribute my passion and involvement to Chavez, Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy and his brother, Robert, Latino Vietnam vets and many of the unsung men and women warriors throughout our communities who participated right along with us in our struggle for justice.
We were inspired by great leaders who looked like us, spoke like us and lived amongst us.
Those were challenging times. Our friends were beaten up and locked up because we demanded our civil rights. My younger brother and I were tear-gassed when we took part in the first Chicano Moratorium March in Los Angeles, where journalist Ruben Salazar was killed by police.
Our participation in countless demonstrations across the nation, helping open the doors to institutions of higher education, allowed our community the opportunity to gain a higher education and join the professional and political ranks in this country. We made some gains. We still have a long way to go.
Unlike the family members I grew up with in Texas, my own family now is multicultural and multiracial. I see great and wonderful opportunities for it. The election of a compassionate leader like Obama will spread the path for us, our country and the world. Take a look at your own history and story, take a look at his, and then join me as we cast our vote for Barack Obama.
(Gus Chavez, now retired, served as director of the Office of Educational Opportunity Programs and Ethnic Affairs at San Diego State University. Readers may reach him at guschavez2000(at)yahoo.com.)
However, I think Latino voters should reconsider. Hillary doesn't have that much more experience in the Senate. In fact, the only thing that she really has in terms of experience over Obama is the fact the she was the first lady. There is no way that should be considered something that should put her over the top of Obama. First off, it would be impossible for Obama to ever be the first lady. Second, it doesn't really mean anything because it is nothing more than a symbolic position anyhow. I don't understand how Latinos feel like they relate more to Clinton rather than obama. While Hillary was working as a corporate lawyer defending companies like WAL MART (which treats immigrants as expendable labor rather than people) Obama was working as a community organizer for poverty stricken inner city areas in Chicago. There are many other reasons in the article below that list why Latinos should consider supporting Obama. Check it out for yourself.
Latinos must reconsider Obama
February 15, 2008 - 7:25am
By GUS CHAVEZ
Hispanic Link
Much is being said in the media, town-hall meetings and rallies about Latinos choosing between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama as the next president of our country. Some pundits, Latinos included, predict the longtime "rift" between Latinos and blacks will come into play.
I disagree with those who buy into this so-called racial division. We should challenge that old view every time we hear or read about it.
Some also say the "older" working-class generation of Latino Democrats will go along with Clinton because of the Clintons' connection with our community. The reference has some truth to it, but it is a hollow truth that leaves much to be desired.
In contrast, these same pundits say Obama is relatively young and new to the political realities of our country and even less knowledgeable about the needs of Latinos. They point to his lack of experience on global matters as something that could set us back internationally.
Well, maybe yes, maybe no. Then again, how much of a setback can it be, measured against our downward spiral under George W. Bush. There is no place to go but up in our standing -- up in world affairs, up in our economy, up in citizen participation and certainly up in hope for a better future, away from the class, racial and religious divisiveness of the last seven years.
Insofar as Latinos are concerned, Obama may not know how to speak Spanish, but he is not alone. Many, many Latinos don't, either.
He is not an immigrant from Latin America. Here again, he is not alone. We Latinos are increasingly second-, third- or fourth-generation.
Obama is the biracial son of a white woman and African man. Bottom line, he is a U.S. citizen who knows the sentiments of our community.
He has worked organizing with Latinos in Chicago. He has experienced the pressures faced by the working class and has consistently fought the challenges posed by racism and exclusion.
When I see Obama and hear him speak of his vision for our country, it reminds me of where I walked 43 years ago, on a picket line with the United Farm Workers in front of a Safeway store in San Diego.
I was 21 years old, in the Navy and excited to be involved fighting for the rights of farmworkers under the leadership of Cesar Chavez. While the store no longer exists at that site, I am still reminded of the first of many "political" activities I would engage in.
After serving in the Navy for four years, I joined the social-justice fight for inclusion of Chicanos and Latinos in education, health, economic development and our political representation at all levels of government. I was involved in the founding of many local, state and national civil-rights organizations representing the interests and rights of Latinos and low-income students.
I share this background with you so that you will understand where I am coming from with my public endorsement of a political candidate.
My experience is not unique when compared with other Chicano/Latino social-justice activists who rose up in the late '60s and those who continued with the fight since then. I attribute my passion and involvement to Chavez, Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy and his brother, Robert, Latino Vietnam vets and many of the unsung men and women warriors throughout our communities who participated right along with us in our struggle for justice.
We were inspired by great leaders who looked like us, spoke like us and lived amongst us.
Those were challenging times. Our friends were beaten up and locked up because we demanded our civil rights. My younger brother and I were tear-gassed when we took part in the first Chicano Moratorium March in Los Angeles, where journalist Ruben Salazar was killed by police.
Our participation in countless demonstrations across the nation, helping open the doors to institutions of higher education, allowed our community the opportunity to gain a higher education and join the professional and political ranks in this country. We made some gains. We still have a long way to go.
Unlike the family members I grew up with in Texas, my own family now is multicultural and multiracial. I see great and wonderful opportunities for it. The election of a compassionate leader like Obama will spread the path for us, our country and the world. Take a look at your own history and story, take a look at his, and then join me as we cast our vote for Barack Obama.
(Gus Chavez, now retired, served as director of the Office of Educational Opportunity Programs and Ethnic Affairs at San Diego State University. Readers may reach him at guschavez2000(at)yahoo.com.)
Friday, February 8, 2008
Mexico vs. United States in a friendly
For my first blog I decided to reflect upon the outcome of the soccer match between the United States and Mexico that took place last Tuesday. I know that this topic doesn't have anything to do with actual policies that affect relationships between Mexicans and Americans, but it does dislpay a great sense of nationalism between the two sides. Soccer or "football," is without a doubt the most popular sport in Mexico and in many other countries south of the United States as well. However, soccer is nowhere that popular in the United States, but when these two rivals meet tensions always flair and Americans do tend to pay more attention to this particular match up. I found myslef wondering why is this? Maybe it is as simple as the fact the Mexico is our biggest rival just because we share the same border, but maybe it could be beyond that? It is interesting to watch the crowds when these two teams play. I noticed when the United States plays in Mexico, the crowd is nothing but a sea red and green. However, this last game was played in the United States and the crowd was still overwelmingly red and green supoorters cheering on the Mexican team. The match took place in Houston and there is obviously a large Mexican popluation there, so that would make sense that there would be a large Mexican crowd. Every time the cameras panned over the crowd I found myself wondering if the Mexican supporters were actually Americans because of naturalization, Mexicans who came here legally, or illegal immigrants. My roomate who was watching the game with me made a comment saying "if they want to be in America so bad, then maybe they should be cheer for the red, white and blue." For a moment I kind of agreed with his statement, then I thought that if I were living in another country I would always support my home nation when they came play. I think it is a good thing that people can be extremely nationalistic in terms of athletics, but also embrace the lifestyle and freedoms that United States provides. What do you guys think about this rivalry? Here is the article and review of the game below if you are interested in reading it. The game resulted in a 2-2 draw.
Altidore scores first international goal as U.S. ties
Associated Press
HOUSTON -- U.S. coach Bob Bradley spotted a glaring weakness as the Americans tied Mexico 2-2 in an exhibition game Wednesday night.
Jozy Altidore made his first start for the U.S. team and scored a go-ahead goal late in the first half. Oguchi Onyewu also had goal for the Americans, who twice blew leads but extended their home unbeaten streak against Mexico to 10 (8-0-2).
Bradley was worried by how much faster the Mexican team appeared.
"Against their pressure, our ability to play faster, connect faster, that's certainly something, an area we want to improve," Bradley said. "I see a lot of things we must improve. Tonight, the main thing for me is the ability to play faster."
Onyewu scored his third international goal in the 30th minute, but Magallon's first goal for Mexico tied it five minutes later. Altidore, playing just his third match with the national team, scored in the 40th only to have Magallon retie it in the 47th.
The match, played four months before the teams start qualifying for the 2010 World Cup, drew 70,103 boisterous fans, most of them clad in green and rooting for El Tri.
Mexico controlled the ball most of the match and outshot the Americans 13-3. U.S. goalkeeper Tim Howard made six saves.
The fast-paced game was marked by physical play with the United States called for 19 fouls and Mexico whistled for 13.
"The teams played this 'friendly' with the intensity of a qualifier," Mexico coach Hugo Sanchez said in a bit of an exaggeration.
Onyewu made a throw-in that led to the first goal. Landon Donovan controlled the long pass over his shoulder, spun and popped the ball back toward the 6-foot-4 Onyewu, who outleaped defender Israel Castro and headed the ball past goalkeeper Guillermo Ochoa on an angled shot from about 8 yards that went in off a post.
Mexico tied the game on a restart from just outside the penalty area. Pavel Pardo hooked a pass toward the far post and Magallon booted it home as defender Drew Moor grabbed his jersey from behind. The 26-year-old Magallon scored his first goal in 20 career international matches.
"I'm happy for him because, besides being a defender, he also likes to score," Sanchez said of Magallon.
The Americans retook the lead when Altidore, a rising 18-year-old star for Major League Soccer's New York Red Bulls, headed a long pass from Moor past a frozen Ochoa.
Clint Dempsey appeared to score another U.S. goal late in the half, but it was negated by an offside call.
Carlos Vela missed a left-footed shot wide of the net in the opening minute of the second half. The Mexicans kept the attack at the American end and tied the game on a corner kick that ended with Magallon beating Moor again.
Moor, who turned 26 last month, was playing in just his fourth international match.
"His positioning is not great, but it was more just the reaction," Bradley said. "You never want to give up those in set pieces. That ability to put yourself in the right spot and react faster is what happens at this level."
This time, Fernando Arce sent the pass across the goal area and Carlos Salcido deflected it to Magallon. Mexico hadn't scored two goals against the Americans since a 2-1 win in a World Cup qualifier at Mexico City on March 27, 2005 -- El Tri's last win in the series.
Mexico generated several more scoring chances, but never got another clear shot on the U.S. goal.
The U.S. and Mexico were meeting for the 54th time. Mexico leads the series 29-14-11, but the Americans have won nine of the last 13 meetings overall, including a 2-1 win in last year's CONCACAF Gold Cup final.
Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press
Altidore scores first international goal as U.S. ties
Associated Press
HOUSTON -- U.S. coach Bob Bradley spotted a glaring weakness as the Americans tied Mexico 2-2 in an exhibition game Wednesday night.
Jozy Altidore made his first start for the U.S. team and scored a go-ahead goal late in the first half. Oguchi Onyewu also had goal for the Americans, who twice blew leads but extended their home unbeaten streak against Mexico to 10 (8-0-2).
Bradley was worried by how much faster the Mexican team appeared.
"Against their pressure, our ability to play faster, connect faster, that's certainly something, an area we want to improve," Bradley said. "I see a lot of things we must improve. Tonight, the main thing for me is the ability to play faster."
Onyewu scored his third international goal in the 30th minute, but Magallon's first goal for Mexico tied it five minutes later. Altidore, playing just his third match with the national team, scored in the 40th only to have Magallon retie it in the 47th.
The match, played four months before the teams start qualifying for the 2010 World Cup, drew 70,103 boisterous fans, most of them clad in green and rooting for El Tri.
Mexico controlled the ball most of the match and outshot the Americans 13-3. U.S. goalkeeper Tim Howard made six saves.
The fast-paced game was marked by physical play with the United States called for 19 fouls and Mexico whistled for 13.
"The teams played this 'friendly' with the intensity of a qualifier," Mexico coach Hugo Sanchez said in a bit of an exaggeration.
Onyewu made a throw-in that led to the first goal. Landon Donovan controlled the long pass over his shoulder, spun and popped the ball back toward the 6-foot-4 Onyewu, who outleaped defender Israel Castro and headed the ball past goalkeeper Guillermo Ochoa on an angled shot from about 8 yards that went in off a post.
Mexico tied the game on a restart from just outside the penalty area. Pavel Pardo hooked a pass toward the far post and Magallon booted it home as defender Drew Moor grabbed his jersey from behind. The 26-year-old Magallon scored his first goal in 20 career international matches.
"I'm happy for him because, besides being a defender, he also likes to score," Sanchez said of Magallon.
The Americans retook the lead when Altidore, a rising 18-year-old star for Major League Soccer's New York Red Bulls, headed a long pass from Moor past a frozen Ochoa.
Clint Dempsey appeared to score another U.S. goal late in the half, but it was negated by an offside call.
Carlos Vela missed a left-footed shot wide of the net in the opening minute of the second half. The Mexicans kept the attack at the American end and tied the game on a corner kick that ended with Magallon beating Moor again.
Moor, who turned 26 last month, was playing in just his fourth international match.
"His positioning is not great, but it was more just the reaction," Bradley said. "You never want to give up those in set pieces. That ability to put yourself in the right spot and react faster is what happens at this level."
This time, Fernando Arce sent the pass across the goal area and Carlos Salcido deflected it to Magallon. Mexico hadn't scored two goals against the Americans since a 2-1 win in a World Cup qualifier at Mexico City on March 27, 2005 -- El Tri's last win in the series.
Mexico generated several more scoring chances, but never got another clear shot on the U.S. goal.
The U.S. and Mexico were meeting for the 54th time. Mexico leads the series 29-14-11, but the Americans have won nine of the last 13 meetings overall, including a 2-1 win in last year's CONCACAF Gold Cup final.
Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)