Archives for October 2013

Sonoran Alliance Endorses Justin Johnson for Phoenix City Council, District 4

Once in a rare moment, does this blog break ranks from the traditional conservative line and go public with an endorsement of someone who really needs to win an election. This happens when the alternative is so unacceptable to the greater good that it necessitates a break in the silence. This is the case in the race for Phoenix City Council, District 4.

JustinJohnsonOn this rare occasion, it is imperative that we break endorsement silence by asking that the voters of district 4 cast their vote for Justin Johnson.

There’s no other way to state it other than Johnson’s political opponent, Laura Pastor, would be devastating to the City of Phoenix.

Pastor opposes immediate repeal of the food tax – which impacts low and fixed income residents of Phoenix and exacerbates the cycle of poverty in a district that so desperately needs relief from government taxation.

Pastor also fails to understand the devastating long-term impact of pension spiking and the need to overhaul the system. Unlike Justin Johnson, Laura Pastor has refused to sign the pledge to end pension spiking.

We even question Pastor’s desire to serve on the council given her commitment to attend board and committee meetings to which she was appointed. Since her last run for office, Pastor has barely shown up 50% of the time. That speaks volumes to her commitment to district 4 residents.

That leaves a far more acceptable, committed and solution-driven candidate in Justin Johnson.

And while we disagree with him on several social policies, we believe he will best represent and look out for the best interest of the residents of Phoenix’s district 4.

Next Tuesday, when you head to the polls in Phoenix District 4, we ask that you adjust your focus to a long-term view for the future of Phoenix. The current council needs one additional critical vote to pass reforms that will benefit all residents of Phoenix and restore economic common sense to Phoenix government.

Please cast your vote for Justin Johnson.

Visit his website at: JohnsonforPhoenix.com

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery Endorses Chuck Schmidt for Legislative District 23

“Champion of Conservative Values”

SCOTTSDALE, AZ – Today, LD23 House Republican Candidate Chuck Schmidt received the endorsement from Maricopa County’s top prosecutor, Bill Montgomery.

In his statement of support Montgomery stated, “I’m supporting Chuck Schmidt for District 23 House because I know he will be an authentic champion of our conservative values. As a natural leader, Chuck Schmidt will hit the ground running and serve his district and the state of Arizona well.”

Montgomery is the latest endorsement among other elected officials and business leaders throughout the state of Arizona.
“I’m honored to have Bill Montgomery’s support,” Schmidt said. “Bill is widely respected in conservative circles and I look forward to working with him as a legislator to provide our law enforcement and county prosecutors the tools they need to fight crime.”

About Chuck

Chuck Schmidt is a 17-year Arizona resident, husband and father of two children. He graduated from the University of North Dakota, and attended graduate school at Valparaiso University. Since 1988 he has been heavily involved in coaching and education. As the Associate Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer of the Arizona Interscholastic Association, Chuck has been nationally recognized as a leader and supporter of youth athletics. Chuck is seeking the Legislative District 23 seat to better our community through less government interference and the family values he and his wife have worked to uphold.

Chuck lives in Scottsdale with his wife Kristine and his daughter Madalyn. His son, Ky, is currently attending the Virginia Military Institute.
# # #

Why Run For Office If You Don’t Know What You Believe?

H/T to one of our readers and Frosty Taylor and her Maricopa County GOP Briefs for clueing us in on Monday night’s LD13 showdown between incumbent State Representative Darin Mitchell and challenger Diane Landis up in Wickenburg.  The topic was Common Core and while Mitchell “spoke strongly” against Common Core, Landis “said she was still listening to both sides of the issue before taking a stand.”  This is similar to Landis’ current “I’m still learning” position on Medicaid Expansion.  Keep in mind the Expansion issue has dominated the headlines since January, the Legislative session dragged on weeks past the 100 day deadline to deal with the issue, yet nearly ten months later Diane Landis still does not know what she would have done about the issue.

What Landis does know is that she wants to be promoted from the City Council to the State Legislature and to do that she is running against conservatives Steve Montenegro and Darin Mitchell.  What Landis doesn’t know is how she would vote on issues that matter.  Congressman Trent Franks is fond of saying that there are two kinds of people who run for office – those that want to do something, and those that want to be something.  If Diane Landis doesn’t know what she wants to do, we can safely assume she is running for different reasons.

To Fix the Glitch, We Must Fire Ann Kirkpatrick!

The Web Site is Bad, But the Real ‘Glitch’ is ObamaCare Supporter Ann Kirkpatrick

WASHINGTON – While the implementation of ObamaCare has been a “train wreck” for most of the year, it wasn’t until the law’s site was overrun with technical glitches that Americans saw what a fiasco it really was.

As Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius travels to Capitol Hill tomorrow to make excuses for the failures, it’s clear there’s really only one way to fix the “glitches” once and for all. If we want to stop ObamaCare, we must start with firing Ann Kirkpatrick. Kirkpatrick supports the law that raised premiums, cut Medicare, and put bureaucrats between patients and their doctors.

“The web site is bad, but the real ‘glitch’ in ObamaCare is Ann Kirkpatrick,” said NRCC Communications Director Andrea Bozek. “Kirkpatrick voted to keep ObamaCare on the books. If Arizona families want to stop this madness, they can start with firing Ann Kirkpatrick.”

Ann Kirkpatrick Voted Against Repealing ObamaCare. (H.R. 45, Roll Call Vote #154, 229-195, 5/16/13) 

Health And Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Admitted That ObamaCare Will Raise Health Insurance Premiums. “Some people purchasing new insurance policies for themselves this fall could see premiums rise because of requirements in the health-care law, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told reporters Tuesday.” (Louise Radnofsky, “Sebelius: Some Could See Insurance Premiums Rise,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/26/13)

ObamaCare’s Exchange Website Has Been Plagued By Repeated “Crashes” and “Slow Response Times.” “The website has been mired in problems since going live Oct. 1, including crashes, slow response times and failing to allow customers to complete the online process by purchasing health insurance.” (“Administration responding to pressure for answers on messy ObamaCare site,” FOX News, 10/21/13)

The Site Has Cost Triple The Original Estimate. “The government contract for the company that built the glitch-prone website for Obamacare has ballooned to three times its original cost, and some Republicans are demanding the resignation of the cabinet secretary who oversees it.”  (Tom Costello and Erin McClam, “Obamacare Glitches: Gov’t Contract For Troubled Site Has Swelled; GOP Targets Sebelius,” NBC News, 10/18/13)

Obamacare Lie: “keep your healthcare plan.”

by Bob Quasius – Until at least 2012, Obama has been promising that under Obamacare, Americans can keep their health insurance, their doctors, etc.

The Big Obamacare Lies

“We will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your healthcare plan. Period.” – Barack Obama, June 15, 2009

“Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.” – Barack Obama, September 9, 2009

Hear it direct from Obama’s own lips:

Obamacare Lies Exposed

Now, Fox News and other media outlets report the White House knew at least as early as 2010 that ten million or so Americans with individual policies would lose their health insurance, not to mention millions more losing their health insurance when businesses dropped spouses, dropped insurance altogether because the penalty for not providing insurance is less than the cost of the insurance itself, etc.

From the July 19, 2010 IRS 2010 Obamacare regulations:

In the individual market, one study estimated that 40 percent to 67 percent of individual policies terminate each year. Because all newly purchased individual policies are not grandfathered, the Departments expect that a large proportion of individual policies will not be grandfathered, covering up to and perhaps exceeding 10 million individuals.

Obama Obamacare

President Obama – Lied to Americans about keeping doctors and health insurance plans

More than likely, Obama knew from the very beginning, in 2008, that millions of Americans would lose their health insurance. Note the the IRS regulations cited a May 2008 study sponsored by the reputable Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which surely was available to Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in 2008.

Source: Adele M. Kirk. The Individual Insurance Market: A Building Block for Health Care Reform? Health Care Financing Organization Research Synthesis. May 2008. (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation)

It’s implausible that Obama didn’t know about this massive loss of health insurance coverage all along. In other words, Obama has lied to the American people for years, in order to push his agenda.

Kathleen Sebelius obamacare train wreck

Kathleen Sebelius, HHS Secretary Responsible for Obamacare train wreck

Kathleen Sebelius should resign, not just for lying, but the sheer incompetence evident in rolling out Obamacare.

The Obamacare train is rapidly turning into a train wreck, from the broken promises to the failed web site. While it’s fair to say that not everything in Obamacare is bad, it’s clear major surgery is needed. The individual mandate should be delayed for at least a year while the program is overhauled, if not repealed outright. Government should never be in the business of forcing consumers to buy a product!

Repeal Obamacare or Overhaul?

There are parts of Obamacare that I believe should be retained, though in some cases modified:

  • Removing barriers to insurance for treatment of pre-existing conditions.
  • Grants to community health centers, 501(c)3 organizations that often rely on volunteers, private grant funds, etc., which in my opinion to a particularly good job of providing health coverage in under-served communities and groups, such as migrant workers, immigrants, etc.

Congress should start from the position of total repeal, then retain the few good parts, rather than attempt to fine tune Obamacare.

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

Wendy Rogers: Kyrsten Sinema Seeks To Impose Inflexible Big Government Healthcare On All

Yesterday, Congressman Kyrsten Sinema wrote, “The Attorney General’s office should conduct a full review of  . . . unsatisfactory work [on ObamaCare]. The federal government has a duty to take swift action to fix this continuing problem.”   Sinema masks her intentions by calling for government to ‘fix this continuing problem’.

Government IS the problem.

Government doesn’t create new goods or services, nor does it improve national productivity.  In fact, for the bureaucrat to advance her career, she needs to control more taxpayer dollars and/or supervise more people.

Rather than favor a healthcare system that maintains the maximum flexibility and delivers the most benefits to the majority of hardworking taxpayers, Sinema seeks to impose a single and inflexible healthcare system on us all.

It’s killing our economy.

Can Mr. Taxpayer buy a home when his family healthcare might skyrocket or be cancelled altogether?

Despite small business owners creating 7 of 10 jobs, we are held hostage by ObamaCare’s Individual Mandate which requires 59-y/o patients to be covered for child bearing, yet not be eligible for Medicare.

Dot-gov does not equal competition; Dot-com does.  Get Dot-gov out of the Dot-com business.

Wendy Rogers is a Republican candidate for Congress in Arizona’s 9th congressional district. Visit her website at WendyRogers.org.

White House Knew Millions Would Lose Coverage Under ObamaCare: When Did Kyrsten Sinema Know?

It’s Time For Sinema to End Her Silence

WASHINGTON – After President Obama repeatedly and confidently assured Americans that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” it turns out that what he really meant was quite the opposite. After reports of millions of Americans losing their current health insurance thanks to ObamaCare, the Administration finally admitted yesterday that they’ve known all along that individuals would be dropped from their plans.

Arizona families deserve to know: When did Kyrsten Sinema know this, and how long has she kept quiet?

“It’s downright unacceptable that the Administration kept this crucial information out of the American people’s hands, and Kyrsten Sinema owes the hardworking families of her District an explanation as to why she’s kept silent,” said NRCC Communications Director Andrea Bozek. “Millions of Americans are struggling with ObamaCare’s higher costs and dropped coverage, and it’s time for Sinema to admit what she and the Administration have known all along: that ObamaCare is indeed, a train wreck.”

The Obama Administration Has Known That Americans Would Lose Their Health Care Coverage Under ObamaCare for the Past Three Years. (“Obama administration knew millions could not keep their health insurance.” By Lisa Myers and Hannah Rappleye, NBC News. 10/29/13)

More Than 2 Million People Will Lose Their Current Healthcare Plan Due to ObamaCare. (“Obamacare: More than 2 million people getting booted from existing health insurance plans,” CBS News. 10/29/13)

Kyrsten Sinema Voted Against Repealing ObamaCare. (H.R. 45, Roll Call Vote # 154, 5/16/13)

President Obama Promised the American People That “If You Like Your Doctor, You Will Be Able to Keep Your Doctor. Period. If You Like Your Health Care Plan, You Will Be Able to Keep Your Health Care Plan. Period. No One Will Take it Away.” (“Obama: ‘If You Like Your Doctor, You Can Keep Your Doctor.’ By Mary Lu Carnevale, The Wall Street Journal, 6/15/09)

Pinal County Grassroots’ Leader Throws Support Behind Andy Tobin

Andy Tobin

President of Maricopa Republican Club says Tobin will
Continue Fighting ObamaCare and Big Government

Grassroots support for Speaker Andy Tobin’s Congressional run continues to build. Brenda Hermanson, the current President of the Maricopa Republican Club publicly endorsed Speaker Tobin at the Maricopa Republican Club’s monthly meeting late last week, citing Speaker Tobin’s conservative values and his ability to deliver on his promises as House Speaker.

“The people of the city of Maricopa care about the economy, jobs, border security and free-market health care solutions,” said Maricopa Republican Club President Brenda Hermanson. “Speaker Andy Tobin shares our values and has worked tirelessly in the Legislature to cut Arizona’s budget, shrink the size of our state’s government and fight ObamaCare. That’s why I proudly endorse Speaker Andy Tobin for Congress in Arizona’s First Congressional District. I encourage anyone with conservative values, that believes in less-government regulation on our businesses and in our lives, to stand with Speaker Tobin and help him with fundraising and grassroots support.”

“Brenda Hermanson and her husband Marty have always been strong Republicans, supporters and friends to me and to my family,” said Speaker Tobin. “Their endorsement means so much to me as we continue to travel this vast district and talk to voters about why we need new representation in Congress. I look forward to working closely with the Hermanson’s and other Pinal County leaders to take Arizona’s fight to Washington.”

ABOUT ANDY TOBIN:

Andy Tobin is a dad, husband and small business owner who has devoted his life to job creation, public service, and advocating for conservative principles. Tobin has built successful careers in the real estate, banking and insurance industries, creating jobs and helping small businesses grow and expand.

Tobin has been elected four times to represent rural Arizona in the Legislature since 2007. As Speaker of the House, he has overseen the largest budget reductions in the history of Arizona and led the fight against ObamaCare in Arizona.

Tobin and his wife Jennifer have five children.

Arnold Schwarzenegger for President?

by Bob Quasius – The web site Mediaite is reporting that Arnold Schwarzenegger is considering a run for president, and may challenge the constitutional requirement that presidents be natural born citizens. Quoting an unnamed source:

“Schwarzenegger has been talking openly about working on getting the constitutional rules changed so he can run for president in 2016. He is ready to file legal paperwork to challenge the rules.”

Arnold Schwarzenegger U.S. Citizen President

Arnold Schwarzenegger 1983 Publicity Photo Following His Naturalization

Is Arnold Schwarzenegger Even Eligible?

In a word, no!

When our constitution was adopted, the framers included a requirement that our president be a “natural born citizen.” No definition was provided, strong evidence the term “natural born” was widely understood at the time and the framers believed an explicit definition wasn’t needed. U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 states:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The term “natural born citizen” derives from “natural born subject” from English common law. When we won our independence from Britain, all 13 states embraced English common law, except where it conflicted with their new state constitutions.

Obviously any aspect of the monarchy was not included in the new American common law, but other prevailing law, such as tort law and birthright citizenship remained. Not a single state adopted any other definition of  “natural born.” Some states continued to use the term “subject” and “citizen” interchangeably for a years.

Under the articles of confederation, the new United States of America had a weak central government, and strong state government. Immigration, citizenship, etc. were state matters.

Blackstones Commentaries

Blackstones Commentaries

So just what did English Common law say about natural born citizenship when the constitution was adopted? The most authoritative text “An Analysis of the Laws of England” by William Blackstone, first published in 1765, and reprinted in 1770, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1778 and 1783. An updated version of Blackstone’s authoritative text was published by Henry John Stephen in 1841, and reprinted often until after World War II.

Sir William Blackstone common law birthright citizenship

Sir William Blackstone

Blackstone defined “natural born subjects” as those born within the dominions of England. In a monarchy, citizens are called “subjects” while in a Republic, “subjects” are called “citizens.” Americans stopped calling themselves “subjects” and began calling themselves “citizens”, consistent with the change in form of government from monarchy to republic, though for some years both terms were used. From William Blackstone (1765), Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.  

Additionally, a 2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Office concludes:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

Arnold Schwarzenegger was not born a U.S. Citizen, and so under our present constitution he clearly is not eligible to become president.

Can the Courts or Congress Authorize Arnold Schwarzenegger to Run?

Courts don’t have the authority to rewrite the U.S. constitution, though sometimes they may stretch it (i.e. Roe v. Wade), so any legal challenge in the courts has slim chance of success.

There have been two legislative attempts to expand eligibility to run for president. In 2004, Sen. Don Nickles introduced the Natural Born Citizen Act  to define the term, natural-born citizen, to include people who derived citizenship at birth from a U.S. citizen parent and to children under 18 who were adopted by U.S. citizens.

Derivative citizens are born outside the U.S. to citizen parent(s). They are U.S. citizens at birth and thus natural born citizens, though they are not birthright citizens. Derivative citizenship existed in the U.S. prior to independence, and the Naturalization Act of 1790 continued the practice:

” And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:  Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

However, it’s quite clear that children born as foreign citizens who later acquire U.S. citizenship by adoption were not born as U.S. citizens, and are not natural born citizens. Has the Natural Born Citizen Act become law this section of the law likely would have been struck down by the courts.

Should Arnold Schwartzenegger Be Allowed to Run?

Arnold Schwarzenegger California Governor

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

Arnold Schwarzenegger should be allowed to run, but only if our constitution is amended. No end runs around our constitution. We have enough of that already with Obama!

Our constitution’s framers were concerned that a European noble could be granted U.S. citizenship and then made president, effectively returning America to rule by monarchy. This concern was well founded at the time, as most nations were governed by monarchies, and democracy was very uncommon, though not a new concept since the ancient Greeks had invented democracy. Requiring that a president be a natural born citizen precluded that possibility, since a president would have been born in America, or overseas to two U.S. Citizen parents who had resided in the U.S.

However, the days of monarchy have long been gone. Most of the few remaining monarchies are constitutional monarchies. The possibility of an American monarch are nil in the present era, and so eliminating the natural born citizen requirement and permitting long-term naturalized citizens to serve as president is not without merit.

Our constitution provides a mechanism for amending itself. U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch in 2003 proposed the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment:

`Article–

`SECTION 1. A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.

`SECTION 2. This article shall not take effect unless it has been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States not later than 7 years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.’.

Should Arnold Schwarzenegger Run for President?

I”m not a huge fan of Arnold Schwarzenegger, though I admire his immigrant success story. He is unquestionably patriotic and loyal to America, and does have considerable support. In my opinion he has too much personal baggage, and didn’t leave California’s government with a solid financial foundation, though it’s fair to say Arnold didn’t inherit a good situation, and California’s Democrats have long held a stranglehold on the legislature!

Still, I don’t think as a nation we should limit ourselves to natural born citizens for president. Arnold Schwarzenegger became a U.S. citizen in 1983, 30 years ago. Someone who has been a naturalized citizen for 20 years or more should have a shot at the presidency.

However, if Arnold Schwarzenegger is seriously planning a legal challenge rather than constitutional amendment, then we cannot help but wonder if he respects our constitution! There’s a proscribed method for changing our constitution, and a court challenge isn’t one of them! Our current president doesn’t respect our constitution, and we certainly want our next president to respect our constitution!

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans

Will Hispanics Kill the Republican Party?

Hispanics

“Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” – Mark Twain

by Raoul Lowery Contreras – In my 23rd year, I met U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) at the University of Oregon. He signed my copy of his earthshaking book, Conscience of a Conservative.

Being a Republican before I was a “conservative” however, I answered the call to arms of my former boss United States Senator Thomas H. Kuchel (R-CA) to join the fight for the Republican 1964 Presidential nomination on the side of New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller.

I was disappointed when the Goldwater wave overrode Governor Rockefeller for the nomination and further disappointed when Lyndon Baines Johnson overwhelmed Goldwater in November, 1964. The GOP was almost killed by the Democratic wave.

The day after the election, pundits of all sorts pronounced the Republican Party dead, dead forever.

Rest in Peace GOP, November 1964… I was 23.

Fifty years later, I am hearing the same words about the Republican Party being dead. More than 95% of Blacks voted for Obama for racial reasons and that won’t happen again. 73% or so of Hispanics voted for Obama, as well, with higher percentages among Puerto Ricans and Dominicans than among Cubans and Mexican Americans. Will that happen again?

Most of the pundits are ultra-liberal writers/commentators of the mass media. Then there is MSNBC’s Chris Mathews who apparently had an orgasm when Obama won in 2008 (“I Felt This Thrill Going Up My Leg”).

Are they right? History tells us they are not. Republicans were routed in 1932 but came back in 1938 when they won 81 House seats and 6 new senators, and actually did so in 1952. Republicans just missed in 1960 after 8 years of President Eisenhower.

After the Goldwater defeat, the GOP was declared dead and buried but the GOP came roaring back just two years later around the country and elected Richard Nixon in 1968.

The 1966 midterm elections were a Republican romp just two years after Goldwater was heavily defeated. 47 new Republican House members were elected; 3 new senators, 8 new governors including Ronald Reagan (CA) and George Romney of Michigan and 700 new state legislators.

Nixon was reelected by the greatest victory wave in the country since Franklin Roosevelt, a victory in 1972 even greater than Eisenhower’s second victory in 1956.

Watergate came and the GOP stumbled but would have won the 1976 Election if President Gerald Ford had just received 10,000 more votes in Ohio.

1980 came and Ronald Reagan’s win was so convincing that Jimmy Carter conceded hours before the polls closed in California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii and Alaska.

He did better in 1984. In 1988 George H.W. Bush was elected President and carried forth the Reagan/Bush policies for another 4 years.

The Republican Party is not dead, though Democrat partisans wishfully insist that it is.

For example, the Democrat Latino Decisions (LD) group of Hispanic academics based at the University of Washington has published their projections of a growing Latino electorate and how it feels now and will feel in the future if there is no Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR). Despite the fact that it was Democrats led by Harry Reid and Barack Obama that torpedoed the 2006-7 Bush CIR proposal, Latino Decisions tells us that Latinos will blame Republicans even if Obama sits on his hands and allows CIR to die.

More importantly Latino Decisions predicts growing Hispanic electorates in their projections but insist on a static 25% of the Latino vote going Republican in their future scenarios.

That, however, is a faulty assumption that destroys their conclusions of how Latinos will vote. They assume, wrongly, that the GOP Hispanic vote will remain at 25% despite the fact that the Hispanic Republican vote has approached 50 percent in past elections; i.e. Hispanic votes have been documented only since 1968.

Their 25% is based on the Romney Hispanic vote of 2012. Belying that assumption are actual Hispanic votes cast for John McCain — 31% and George W. is credited with 44% in 2004. No one knows how Hispanics voted in 1952 and 56 but we can guess that they voted for their Commanding General just like the rest of America did.

The percentage is the key. But it is not when one uses a static 25% based on an outlier election result of 2012.

We know this, since Hispanic votes have been counted and studied, each Republican that has earned 35% or more of the Hispanic vote has won the Presidency; that includes Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

hispanics juntos con romney

Can Republicans increase their Hispanic vote by a third more than Mitt Romney received in 2012? Fact: Hispanics hold two governorships (Brian Sandoval in Nevada, Susanna Martinez in New Mexico) and, one U.S. Senator named Marco Rubio.

Do pundits and Latino Decisions think that more Hispanics won’t vote Republican in 2016 if one of those three Hispanic political giants is on the Republican Presidential ticket?

If they do, they are blind and/or consider Hispanics to be stupid.

Editor’s Note: reposted from Cafe Con Leche Republicans with the author’s permission – original link

####

Raoul Contreras Lowery

Raoul Contreras Lowery

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official (1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available at Amazon.com