Sunday, March 26th, 2006...1:09 pm

Wow, A Republican Group Endorsed Kyl. Golly, I Guess We Should Just Quit Now.

Jump to Comments

Former Rep. Greg Patterson, the “Espresso Pundit,” has an ongoing thesis that the Hispanic community is about to, en masse, become a bullet-proof Republican consituency. For example, one of the pieces of proof he offered was that an employee at Stan Barnes’s firm was Hispanic. The first thing I thought of when I saw that one was that I have a friend at work that is an Evangelical that is a hard core John Edwards fanatic. This must mean that the Evangelicals are about to become solidly Democratic for the next two and a half centuries.

His latest piece of evidence is that an organization called the Southern Arizona Hispanic Leadership Council endorsed Jon Kyl last week. On the surface, a Hispanic organization endorsing a Republican Senator might be a big deal. However, digging around a little bit would show that this is no suprise what so ever, and means a heck of a lot less than people like Patterson would think.

Well, it really doesn’t even take that much digging. A visit to the website has this, right there on the front page:

The Southern Arizona Hispanic Leadership Council was formed in 2005 by a group of active community leaders. Partipants are recruited individually with a focus on hispanic Republicans and Independents. The goal of the organization is to educate the hispanic community about the shared values of the Republican party and to encourage hispanic Republican leaders to run for office.

So, um, the group is a Republican organization. Not just an organization that happens to have a lot of Republicans, but one that wants to elect Republicans. They even have those little flag draped elephants on their brochure. A Republican party organization endorsed a Republican Senator who has a pretty strong lead in the polls. Stop the presses.

Anyone who thinks that the formation of this organization is some sort of “sea change” hasn’t been too observant of our local politics. There has always been a significant number of Hispanics in the Republican party here. Tucson’s only Hispanic mayor was a fellow named Esteban Ochoa, a Republican. The folks that formed the Republican party in Arizona Territory were, hard as it is to believe now, Hispanic Republicans in Tucson. Many of those families, such as the Jacome and Laos families, are still Republican and form a significant part of what is sometimes refered to as la crema, a sort of unofficial Hispanic gentry in Tucson.

Every Hispanic family, even the most politically minded liberal ones, has at least one Republican. This would only indicate a major change in politics if it was something new, but it has been going on for generations.

The interesting thing is that in the past, Republican arguments about Hispanics changing parties have centered around social issues. The SAHLC makes no mention of social issues on their site, and their pro-Kyl press release made only a cursory mention of “common sense values,” whatever the heck that means. Their board consists mostly of business people who “values voters” in the Republican party would regard as part of the problem in their party.

One of the people on their board is a supporter of Raúl Grijalva. I guess this wouldn’t be such a big deal, except for the fact that she’s the chairperson of the organization, Lea Márquez Peterson. I’m not sure what that says, either that the Republicans have such total schlubs running in CD 7 that not even their own activists support them, or that maybe this “earthquake” won’t happen for a long time. By the way, Márquez Peterson’s family, despite being in that “bullet proof” Republican group: small buisinesspeople, are Democrats. (Full disclosure: Márquez Peterson was active with SUAB when I was with that organization at the U of A, and I’ve played soccer with her brother, Edmund Márquez. I’m a bit of a hack, so I probably tripped him more than once.)

Another person on the board is Lillian Lopez-Grant. Lopez-Grant has been involved in Republican politics for years in this town, so she isn’t exacly an indicator of anything “new.” However, she is probably the only person on that board that has anything approaching organizational muscle. But, even she has been dissed by the local Republican establishment, most recently by Councilmember Kathleen Dunbar in the last election. As much as the Republicans like to talk about inclusion, things like this are also noticed by the community.

Even though you have candidates like Dunbar who refuse to campaign in Hispanic neighborhoods, the biggest impediment for organizations like the SAHLC is their own Republican primary voters. Take the 2004 primary in CD 7 for example. You had Lou Muñoz, a local businessman, against Joe Sweeney, a racist and certifiable moron. So, instead of voting for the level headed candidate, CD 7 Republicans chose, by a two-to-one margin, the race baiting Sweeney. What can one do but ask if people wanted to vote for Sweeney because he was a racist, or against Muñoz because of his race? One can also look at the Republican primary for Superintendent of Public Instruction in 2002, where Tom Horne ran a campaign that asked if Latino Republican incumbent Jaime Molera could be trusted to make sure that kids learned English. He was rewarded with a victory.

But, keep up the wishful thinking.

9 Comments

  • My favorite espresso theory is that Catholics will be voting en masse for Republicans because the Church came out in support of the Traditional Marriage Amendment.

    The Church has also been very vocally pro-immigrant and, at least the Phoenix bishop has written to Catholic parishoners lecturing on their duty to support migrants. (I believe they also helped with last Friday’s march to Kyl’s office.)

    Under Patterson’s theory, there should be an en masse movement of Catholics toward the Democratic Party based on this directive from on high.

    But there won’t be … for either issue. Because this is America and there are very few Roman Catholics here; just millions of Cafeteria Catholics.

    Most people’s minds are already made up on these issues and whatever Father soandso or Bishop whatshisname says, parishoners will vote their conscious, not their religion.

  • Jim Pederson can’t buy this election Ted. It’s really fun to watch you dems get your hopes all up, and then poof…..YOU LOSE!

    Forgetaboutit!!!!

  • And then when we win, do we get to feed you crow?
    :)

  • Great post, Ted. I was contemplating a fisking of this astro-turf endorsement myself, but I’m glad to see you’ve done such a devastating job of it.

    I’ve got to get over to Espresso more often, the place is a rich vein of material. I just posted a bit on how conservatives have lobotomies on the subject of deficits based on an Espresso post.

  • I don’t think Hispanics will be voting for Republicans en masse, but I think that even moderate inroads will be enough to tip elections.

  • whatever they might gain thru the gay marriage issue, they’ll lose thru the immigration issue.

  • Tedski, you may be correct that the Southern Arizona Hispanic Leadership Council is a Republican front group. But in the same vain the Christian Alliance for Progress is a front group of Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Lutheran liberals pretending to be Christians.

    Their values page starts out with Compassion and Care for “The Least of These” Then they go on to voice support for abortion on their issue page. They call it “Sanctity of Childbearing Decisions” Who is the “least of these” if not an unborn human baby. She has a heartbeat, eyes, nose, ears, face but no voice in our legal system.

    They state, “each woman’s body belongs to herself.” Two mistakes here, the unborn child inside her is not her body. The DNA is separate and distinct. It is contained in her body but not part of it. Next point is a true Christian would believe that her life and therefore body belongs to God.

    So it looks like liberals also use front-groups.

  • “But in the same vain the Christian Alliance for Progress is a front group of Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Lutheran liberals pretending to be Christians.”

    So, I guess you are saying that anyone who is liberal can’t be Christian? Pretty insulting, don’t you think? I could go through all the ways that conservatives haven’t exactly been the best at upholding Christian ideals (two examples: the application of the Death Penalty and their enthusiasm for torturing Iraqi prisoners), but there probably wouldn’t be much point in that.

    Why do you see the mote in your neighbor’s eye, but fail to see the beam in your own?

  • tedski I would be happy to do away with the death penalty right now as part of a comprehensive change that also respects innocent, unborn humans.

    You are correct; torture is not a Christian value. That is one of the reasons why I do not support it.

    A great example of a liberal Christian view is that of the Catholic Church. I do not agree with every position they take but I greatly respect the consistency of their reasoning (especial on the Sanctity of Life.)

Leave a Reply

Add to Technorati Favorites hidden hit counter