More Crappola from Ruben Navarette Jr.?
(I transformed this piece below into a full blown post which I found somewhere in the comments section of this site. Yes, I can do that. :-) Thanks, Jaango)
In a recent article and now published online at the web site for CNN, Navarette posits the Republican talking points and goes so far as to say the Senator McCain would make an excellent president. And my not to disagree too strenously with Navarette, but perhaps, he has consumed one too many cups of java. Thus, not to rain on his parade, I will refute his various and sundry statements.
First, Navarette goes on to criticize the many pundits for their suggesting that Latinos would not vote for Senator Barack Obama. Moreover, he at least acknowledges that Latinos favored the Clinton 'brand' for historical reasons. This behavior among Latinos is not new in the least. Furthermore, he pontificates that as the Clinton campaign was running out of gas, Latinos were migrating to the Obama campaign. Not so, of course, if he was willing to acknowledge that the voters in Puerto Rico continued to support Clinton at the same constant and consistent level and this behavior was reaffirmed by the exit polls.
Now that Clinton has conceded the race to Obama, it logically follows that Latinos will overwhelmingly vote for Senator Obama in the General Election in contrast to Senator McCain. Needless to say, the majority of Latinos are affiliated with the Democratic Party and they do so because the Democratic Coalition "delivers" to the Latino Community. However, if Navarette had questioned the validity of "what" and "how much" the Democratic Coalition will deliver to Latinos, he would be making a valid and exemplary case as to his Argumentation, but he isn't and he doesn't, and thusly, falls far short.
In a recent article and now published online at the web site for CNN, Navarette posits the Republican talking points and goes so far as to say the Senator McCain would make an excellent president. And my not to disagree too strenously with Navarette, but perhaps, he has consumed one too many cups of java. Thus, not to rain on his parade, I will refute his various and sundry statements.
First, Navarette goes on to criticize the many pundits for their suggesting that Latinos would not vote for Senator Barack Obama. Moreover, he at least acknowledges that Latinos favored the Clinton 'brand' for historical reasons. This behavior among Latinos is not new in the least. Furthermore, he pontificates that as the Clinton campaign was running out of gas, Latinos were migrating to the Obama campaign. Not so, of course, if he was willing to acknowledge that the voters in Puerto Rico continued to support Clinton at the same constant and consistent level and this behavior was reaffirmed by the exit polls.
Now that Clinton has conceded the race to Obama, it logically follows that Latinos will overwhelmingly vote for Senator Obama in the General Election in contrast to Senator McCain. Needless to say, the majority of Latinos are affiliated with the Democratic Party and they do so because the Democratic Coalition "delivers" to the Latino Community. However, if Navarette had questioned the validity of "what" and "how much" the Democratic Coalition will deliver to Latinos, he would be making a valid and exemplary case as to his Argumentation, but he isn't and he doesn't, and thusly, falls far short.
And here is the "meat" of his Argumentation:
"Choice No. 2 is not such a bad option. McCain would make an excellent president. And, in fact, I suspect that, when all is said and done, many Latinos--perhaps as much as 35%--will put their support behind him. Not because they have anything against Obama, but because McCain has--for more than 15 years and long before the immigration issue became prominent--had an outstanding record for reaching to out to Latino voters, earning as much as 70 percent of the Latino voter in his Senate re-election campaigns in Arizona."
Firstly, let me say and as a Democrat, I voted for McCain's re-election in 2004 for two reasons and as such, the Democratic candidate had no risible public experience and he campaigned on a platform for "anybody but Bush". This political behavior is egregious in all manner and form for consideration when addressing "public policy" either from a Democrat or a Republican. Additionally, back in 2000, Bush's acolytes "trashed" McCain in South Carolina, and the consequence of this behavior for the political gutter, caused McCain to fold his political tent and also caused me to consider that McCain deserved a second chance to concretize his presidential ambitions, and to my way of thinking, some "fairness" was called for on my part. And as a Latino from Arizona, my behavior was not unusual in the least since many Latinos expressed their similar concerns and voted accordingly for McCain. And yet, Navarette, never checked with any Latinos in Arizona as to their voting behavior. To wit, Navarette is touting the Charlie Black propaganda with the usual panache for political spin.
And Navarette is also wrong when he says that he--McCain has a long history for "reaching out" to Latinos here in Arizona. As such, more of the traditional snake oil is being offered to anyone who is willing to listen and to those who are unfamiliar with McCain's history. In his 20 plus years in Congress, McCain has yet to deliver "anything" by my lights, to Latinos in general and to Latinos in Arizona in particular. With respect to Immigration, he dropped the ball after being scalded by the hot water delivered to him by his fellow conservatives. To wit, McCain did not show himself to Latinos as a "stand-up guy". So, if one were to go back to his past ten years for demonstrating his presidential ambitions, he has followed the Conservative Agenda to the dismay of political Moderates in either the Republican or Democratic Parties. To wit, he has filled the seat of the late Barry Goldwater, and McCain still remains to the right of Goldwater when it comes to public policies for all the many years, both in the House and the Senate. He is an Uber-Conservative, and the only more Uber-Conservative Member of the Senate is Jon Kyl and he too is from Arizona. And needless to say, McCain sends Kyl out onto the public airwaves and to the editorial newsrooms of the major newspapers to "market" McCain's amibitions.
Now, I could expressly say, but I won't, that the Fourth Branch of Government is the Corporate News Media, and yet, the news media will now get around to 'digging into" McCain's political history once they have gotten over themsevesl for their behavior for the sexism that was concentrated and in heavy abundance at Hillary Clinton. And lest we Latinos misunderstand, the "press" is still in denial of their reporting behavior, and still think they did nothing wrong. Democrats of all stripes should be challenging the press for their behavior, lest the press refuse to challenge the nuanced and subtle "attacks" that will be leveled at both McCain and Obama. Getting some Truth out of the corporate-owned news media would be welcomed and help restore the tarnished reputation of many of the media news outlets and their employees.
Perhaps, in the future, Ruben Navarette Jr. should consider contacting the Chicano Veterans Organization when it comes to fully understanding the political behavior being advanced by the McCain Campaign and their respective "talking points". And as we have been following Senator McCain since he arrived into the Sonoran Desert in the early 1980's and commenced his political career, we consider ourselves "experts" on the subject matter, and bar none.
And given that this is already a lengthy post, I won't proceed to aggravate your reading pleasure any further, and therefore, it's the "issues" and not McCain the person, that is being challenged in the form of Navarette. And of course, Navarette knows this too but he will continue "preaching" McCain to the Latino Communities. After all, he is a notable Republican since there are few Latinos with his access to the high-premium platforms for public discourse.
_______
The above can be found on the page for the "Cactus Juice Commentaries" at the web site of the Chicano Veterans Organization.
"Choice No. 2 is not such a bad option. McCain would make an excellent president. And, in fact, I suspect that, when all is said and done, many Latinos--perhaps as much as 35%--will put their support behind him. Not because they have anything against Obama, but because McCain has--for more than 15 years and long before the immigration issue became prominent--had an outstanding record for reaching to out to Latino voters, earning as much as 70 percent of the Latino voter in his Senate re-election campaigns in Arizona."
Firstly, let me say and as a Democrat, I voted for McCain's re-election in 2004 for two reasons and as such, the Democratic candidate had no risible public experience and he campaigned on a platform for "anybody but Bush". This political behavior is egregious in all manner and form for consideration when addressing "public policy" either from a Democrat or a Republican. Additionally, back in 2000, Bush's acolytes "trashed" McCain in South Carolina, and the consequence of this behavior for the political gutter, caused McCain to fold his political tent and also caused me to consider that McCain deserved a second chance to concretize his presidential ambitions, and to my way of thinking, some "fairness" was called for on my part. And as a Latino from Arizona, my behavior was not unusual in the least since many Latinos expressed their similar concerns and voted accordingly for McCain. And yet, Navarette, never checked with any Latinos in Arizona as to their voting behavior. To wit, Navarette is touting the Charlie Black propaganda with the usual panache for political spin.
And Navarette is also wrong when he says that he--McCain has a long history for "reaching out" to Latinos here in Arizona. As such, more of the traditional snake oil is being offered to anyone who is willing to listen and to those who are unfamiliar with McCain's history. In his 20 plus years in Congress, McCain has yet to deliver "anything" by my lights, to Latinos in general and to Latinos in Arizona in particular. With respect to Immigration, he dropped the ball after being scalded by the hot water delivered to him by his fellow conservatives. To wit, McCain did not show himself to Latinos as a "stand-up guy". So, if one were to go back to his past ten years for demonstrating his presidential ambitions, he has followed the Conservative Agenda to the dismay of political Moderates in either the Republican or Democratic Parties. To wit, he has filled the seat of the late Barry Goldwater, and McCain still remains to the right of Goldwater when it comes to public policies for all the many years, both in the House and the Senate. He is an Uber-Conservative, and the only more Uber-Conservative Member of the Senate is Jon Kyl and he too is from Arizona. And needless to say, McCain sends Kyl out onto the public airwaves and to the editorial newsrooms of the major newspapers to "market" McCain's amibitions.
Now, I could expressly say, but I won't, that the Fourth Branch of Government is the Corporate News Media, and yet, the news media will now get around to 'digging into" McCain's political history once they have gotten over themsevesl for their behavior for the sexism that was concentrated and in heavy abundance at Hillary Clinton. And lest we Latinos misunderstand, the "press" is still in denial of their reporting behavior, and still think they did nothing wrong. Democrats of all stripes should be challenging the press for their behavior, lest the press refuse to challenge the nuanced and subtle "attacks" that will be leveled at both McCain and Obama. Getting some Truth out of the corporate-owned news media would be welcomed and help restore the tarnished reputation of many of the media news outlets and their employees.
Perhaps, in the future, Ruben Navarette Jr. should consider contacting the Chicano Veterans Organization when it comes to fully understanding the political behavior being advanced by the McCain Campaign and their respective "talking points". And as we have been following Senator McCain since he arrived into the Sonoran Desert in the early 1980's and commenced his political career, we consider ourselves "experts" on the subject matter, and bar none.
And given that this is already a lengthy post, I won't proceed to aggravate your reading pleasure any further, and therefore, it's the "issues" and not McCain the person, that is being challenged in the form of Navarette. And of course, Navarette knows this too but he will continue "preaching" McCain to the Latino Communities. After all, he is a notable Republican since there are few Latinos with his access to the high-premium platforms for public discourse.
_______
The above can be found on the page for the "Cactus Juice Commentaries" at the web site of the Chicano Veterans Organization.
6 Comments
About this Entry
What exactly has the Democratic Party "delivered" to Latinos? While a plurality of Latinos are Democrat, about half are not, with about a third registered independent and a little less than 20% registered Republican. Latinos are Democrat by default, and the growing independent Latino voters is an indicator of how the Dems take Latinos for granted. The GOP has outspent the Dems in Spanish language ads the last two elections!
I really don't understand where you are getting your information from. CPAC doesn't like McCain. What kind of "uber-conservative" is hated by CPAC? I understand you're just a partisan, but you should work on making your arguments more fact-based. Navarrete may be wrong (he may not be), but countering his argument with blind partisanship doesn't do your readership, Latinos, any good in educating them.
I am writing to you as I am with Hillary Supporters. I have to tell you something very important. There are now MILLIONS of us Hillary supporters who are leaving the Democratic party and voting for John McCain. PLease hear me out. The Democratic primary win was taken from Hillary. She had the most votes. If you will go to the websites I am going to give you, you will see what I mean. We have learned alot about Obama and he wants to be more of a dictator than a president. Read all the comments, and you will see videos of him making speaches, and his wife too. The bad side of Obama is being kept from you by the media. He has ties to people who are linked with terrorists. You will read articles and see videos of people who have been on TV that have been threatened by his supporters if they did not back him. Please for your families and this country go look at what we have found out. These are not smears, they are facts. Don't let Obama, the DNC, and the media fool you. See the truth for yourselves and you will see why we , MILLIONS of DEMOCRATS, are voting for MCCAIN. Here are the websites: www.hcsfjm.com...www.dontvoteobama.com...www.hillaryclintonforum.com....www.noquarterusa.net...www.chicagoagainstobama....www.justsaynodeal.com...if you agree with us please tell everyone you know to vote for MCCAIN. Thank You!!
All I see is a bunch of racism on your site and fear of his BLACK family and stating that he is a supporter of Muslims (terrorists in your opinion). People like you should move to an all white, racist country. It's crap like this Obama stands address and change which is what you don't want.
Go back home, turn on the Disney channel, and have a nice life.
If that is all you saw on the site than you did not read enough. Why is it everytime someone disagrees with Obama they are a racist. We have people form all nationalites on this site. His race is not the issue, what is the issues is his lack of experience and his plans for this country. If you would watch all the videos and read the articles you would see why Hillary only called McCain her friend and that her and McCain had the experience to commander in chief, Obama just had speeches. Obama recently said..and it is on video..at a speech "I don;t care if you're poor, you can send my campaign 5 or 10 dollars"
and at a fundraiser he told the governor of PA, "We don;t need people, we need checks". Look at all the issuses he has changed his mind on and the broken promise about campaign financing.
All I am asking all of you is to please before you vote, read up on both candidates. There is a link right now at our site. It is a video of a college kid ..I think..he looks about that age. This guy has made alot of ads supporting obama until Obama broke his promise about camgaign financing. The boy then went and made a video of how he felt and why. After supporting Obama for months he began to realize, after looking at things, that he probably won't be for Obama now.
The polls you see, you honestly can't trust them. Even on the net they are being rigged. Why do you think last month Obama had his worst fundraising yet. I want to tell you this too.
My family is Hispanic, I care very much their future will be like. I know from reading everything I have that Obama will not be good for our country and our people. Obama wants to raise your taxes, he has a bill where he even wants all of to pay several thousand dollars a year in extra taxes to send to other countrys sot help them, he says we will have to sacrifice, don't eat so much, change to a smaller car,how the temperature in your house should be set, he has said racist and sexist remarks, he hardly ever votes yes or no for a bill, he has been a senator for less than 170 days and decides he can run this country. He has even not told the truth about what other leaders say to him, do you think this is good for our country. He just voted to PASS our phones being wiretapped...Does this not tell you he is out to change ever part of the way we live. I sure don't want someone controlling everything I do , or especially what my children do. Please just be sure you know who you are voting for, Thanks for taking the time to read this.
"Why is it everytime someone disagrees with Obama they are a racist. "
You have a huge banner on your sitge that in 4 outa 5 pictures depicts him as Muslim, which he is not. 'Nuff said.
I think it's amazing how many people who are pro Clinton, and hate Obama never consider the fact that her husband was impeached, and didn't step down. Why didn't that ever become as much of an issue as Michelle's American pride comment? Why didn't it become an issue that most of Clinton's experience was working jobs that her husband or his connections (this is the impeached guy) got her?
As for Obama being tied to people linked to terrorists; On 9/11 (or was it 9/12)the current president smuggled out Bin Laden FAMILY members, "for their safety." Not many things tie people together like blood. I'm pretty sure that if that happened on Obama's watch and he did the same, there would be cries of treason.
Why hasn't Bush been impeached for that?
And nobody holds Bush accountable for all of those misogynistic cults that thrive in Texas. Wasn't he the governor of Texas?
I'll take my chances with the guy smart enough to beat the Clinton-Carville election machine. And Kudos to Carville too for standing up for Obama against Bill Bennett on CNN last week.
All African Americans are proud Americans until they go live somewhere else. That's the big joke of it all. We (yup, I am one) fight FOR America at home through politics, and abroad in the service. How often do you see AAs and Latinos, or even Asians, depicted as service personnel?
I've been downsized at work during the Clinton administration, and I was downsized TWICE at my next job under the Bush administration, so the guy that first said (and I'll paraphrase here)"Hey Man, who cares about Iraq? Our people are going through some crap here at home, right now. Let OPEC handle Saddam" is the best person to be president to me.
On a lighter note; Obama just wants to change policies and tactics that haven't worked. Could he really be any worse for us than Bush has been?