Click here to view the embedded video.

It also seems some members of the CHC are finally speaking out about Obama’s gatekeeper, Rahm Emanuel, White House chief of staff, for pulling the strings when it comes to immigration. Politico also reported that the CHC is also singling out Emanuel for his involvement to prohibit undocumented immigrants from buying health insurance plans.

“A forensic study would show it all leads back to Rahm Emanuel and the White House,” said Illinois Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus who worked with Emanuel when the president’s top aide was in the House.

Since being chosen as President Obama’s White House Chief of Staff after the 2008 election, Rahm Emanuel has emerged as the “most influential White House chief of staff in a generation,” according to a New York Times article. His hardball approach to politics earned him the nickname “Rahmbo” during the the Clinton administration.

Obama selected of Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff to exert control over Obama’s team and legislative agenda. Emanuel has proved in the past that he bows to no-one when it comes to getting the job done. Democrats fear the consequences of crossing him; their fear is not unsubstantiated. He once sent a dead fish to a disloyal Democratic pollster during a US Congressional race when Bill Clinton ran for his first bid to the Presidency. Outraged at “disloyal Democrats” during Clinton’s first presidential campaign, he stunned dinner companions by rattling off names of the offenders, each time stabbing the restaurant table with a dinner knife and shouting, “Dead.”

It’s no secret that Emanuel has been an obstacle for immigration reform since he views immigration as “third rail of American politics.” Like the electrified rail used to power the trains, he believed that any Democrat who touched immigration would face likely (political) death.

Upon President Barack Obama 2008 electoral victory, immigrant advocates expressed hope that immigration reform would take place in the first term or even in the first year. In a press briefing, Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, mentioned that immigration reform would probably occur between “September of 2009 and maybe the end of March 2010.”

Some felt Rahm Emanuel must had a change on heart when he told Hispanic media “the arrow is pointing in a different direction in relation to immigration politics in this country.” However, it was only a matter of time Emanuel’s true colors would come out.

During the summer, the president did an about face to make immigration reform “a top priority in my first year.” In June, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said there are not enough votes for the Obama administration to achieve its desired immigration reform. At a Christian Science Monitor breakfast, Emanuel reiterated the same message.

The simple fact is that Rahm Emanuel never deviated from his view that immigration is a “third rail” despite what told the Hispanic media. Speaking on the condition of anonymity to Politico, a CHC member confirmed that “[he] still thinks immigration will defeat Democrats.”

Although the ideas epitomized in Emma Lazarus’ poem of the “poor, yearning to breathe free” have been much immortalized in American culture, immigrants in the US have always faced problems of discrimination, ethnocentrism, and racism. Yet, to see Republicans wield undocumented immigrants as a weapon to derail or postpone the passage of any health care bill goes beyond than being mean-spirited.

From the time I started blogging, I have watched with unease as restrictionist forces gain ground in communities, public policy, and political discourse. It was easy to see wheels were in motion hijack the health care debate after Rep Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” outburst. As a consequence, the White House is now willing to placate to the immigration restrictionists in Congress.

What is frustrating, instead of listening to me and all the other people who were sounding the alarms, CHC once again was slow to respond. True, Rahm Emanuel may be an obstacle towards immigration reform, but the CHC is also their own worst enemy.

Their main mistake has been not fighting back hard and soon enough. As a consequence, CHC have conceded vast political terrain they had won after the 2008 election. Instead of using their constituents for support, they are now forced to choose between political realism and social idealism. The former focuses all energy on political reform and partisan politics, while the focuses on creating a society which would be more democratic and more just.

As Rep. Luis Gutierrez jump start the immigration debate by introducing a comprehensive reform bill in the Democrat-controlled Congress in December, Gutierrez’s bill most likely won’t see the light of day as Democrats leaders consider ditching their controversial legislative agenda next year; making it likely immigration reform will be addressed in Obama’s second term if elected.

Once again, immigration restrictionists have succeeded in framing the immigration debate, forcing Democrats to view immigration reform as a “third rail.” Maybe now the members of CHC will take us seriously.

NCLR (National Council of La Raza) President and CEO Janet Murguía and Executive Producer Eva Longoria Parker promised the ALMA Awards will be bigger and better than before. This year, the ALMA Awards will include feature new categories, including one for emerging young talent and a sports award

“If you like the ALMA Awards, you will love this year s show because we re bringing you more of what you love most, unique musical pairings and the best Latino entertainment, said Murguía. The ALMA Awards is one of the few opportunities in primetime to spotlight the Latino presence in entertainment, and we want to celebrate the impact Latinos had last year not only in film and television, but also in music and sports television.”

Eric Ward at Imagine 2050 highlights some of the new development for this year’s award show.

I know, I know, I have been critical of NCLR and this may seem like a puff piece. Some may feel I must have been brainwashed when I went to Chicago for the annual NCLR conference, which is hard to tell since NCLR has yet to mention on their highlight section of their website, such as the blog posts I wrote or the lack of photographs from the panels that my fellow bloggers and I were on. I can assure you I haven’t let them off the hook, and I still keep a watchful eye on them.

I am writing about the ALMA Awards because it was something Eva Longoria Parker and Raul Yzaguirre mention during the NCLR Annual Conference. At the time of this writing, I was hoping to include the video and the excerpt of the speeches made by Longoria Parker and Yzaguirre, unfortunately, NCLR has yet to upload their video on YouTube or posted the full text of their speeches on their website. During her speech, Eva Longoria Parker said there is more to the awards than just the glamour and glitz we see in the media.

The ALMA Awards is to encourage and recognize the positive portrayals of Latinos in the entertainment industry. It is to show people the vast diversity and capabilities of the Latino community and to bring down the barriers that typically typecast Latinos into certain roles that are rigid and secondary in regards to the plot.

Raul Yzaguirre spoke about the history of the ALMA Awards. As a result from a 1994 study by NCLR, Out of the Picture, the American Latino Media Arts Awards was created in an effort to send a message to the public that Latinos can be versatile in different roles while embracing their role as a community role model. The study found that Hispanics were “invisible in both the entertainment and news media” and were negatively portrayed on network television. A year later, FOX aired NCLR’s Bravo Awards (later called the NCLR ALMA Awards). As he spoke about the ALMA Awards, like Eva Longoria Parker, I too remember having a feeling of pride when the Bravo/ALMA Awards was aired.

The ALMA Awards have come a long way since then. Some dub this award as the Latino Oscar. One noticeable difference, for the first time, the ALMA Awards will air during National Hispanic Heritage Month. Hopefully, this will be permanent, instead of being aired in February like it was in the past.

Given the current anti-Latino climate, it won’t be hard to look past the all the glamor and the glitz. I know where I will be on Sept 18. I will be watching the 2009 ALMA Awards with the same pride I had when it first aired 14 years ago. So save the date -

SEPTEMBER 18 (8:00-10:00 p.m., ET), The 2009 ALMA Awards on the ABC.

During the Hispanic Male Summit, the panel was asked by an ESL teacher asked what could these young Latinos do so they too could reap the benefits of going to college. I told them point blank, you make them scared of you. You let them know we are here and we are not going anywhere. I also reminded our newly elected Sheirff who voted him into office to make him the first Hispanic elected sheriff in Harris County. Most importantly, I reminded them of 2006.

On May 1st, it time we take to the streets and demand an end to immigration policies that marginalize and dehumanize millions of our people. It is important that we make this march historic and important, and that we will not stop. We have yet to speak with a unified political voice that forces our government to do right by all of us. But we can starting today, with your help.

As inaugural member, I like to introduce you to a new and exciting organization, Presente.org. There goal is to create a broad-based online community of Latinos and our allies strong enough to make the United States honor its promises and protect our people. To plan to kick off the on May 1st, and they don’t play to stop there – this organization is in it for the long haul by tackling the issues that most affect our communities, such as education and health care.

Our power is in our voices and our numbers. It starts by affirming a simple pledge: to stand up and speak out for the interests of Latino communities. Please join us, and just as important, invite your friends and family to do the same: Presente.org

President Obama has pledged to push for immigration reform, and other politicians are also with us. For the first time in a generation, we have a real chance to drastically change our country’s immigration policy, impacting the lives of millions of friends, family members, and coworkers. But we can’t rely on politicians to pass real and just reforms. There are strong forces who stand against us, and they’ve made it clear that they will do everything in their to fight true reform.

Real change will only happen if everyday people speak with a strong, unified voice. It is time we start looking behind the FACADE that passes for news. We must open our eyes to the truth to the ills of this nativist movement – the hatred, the racism, and the ignorance BEHIND this pretty facade.

If you hate…oppression…shackles…chains…exploitation – then I ask you to join us!

If you hate…injustice…inequality…segregation…isolationism – join us!

Presente.org seeks to make possible by using the Internet and national media to hold our leaders accountable, making our political presence accurately reflect our importance to this country. It is time to stand up and be counted, and show the world how large our movement really is!

“I have recently informed the school board of my intention to retire within the next year,” said Dr. Saavedra. “I want to make sure that the board has adequate time to conduct a comprehensive national search for my successor. Selecting a superintendent is the most important decision that a board makes. Making the right decision ensures that the progress that we have made as a district, as a community, will continue forward. I have full confidence the board will select an individual who will take this district to the next level of performance.” (full text)

His announcement shocked everybody, especially the two Latino Board Trustees, Diana Davila and Manuel Rodriguez Jr. It’s not like he had done a terrible job as Superintendent. In fact, as Superintendent of the largest school district in the state and the seventh-largest in the US, he accomplished a lot and clean up the mess left by the two previous Superintendents, former Secretary of Education Rod Paige and Kaye Stripling.

Revisiting the “Houston Miracle” Con Artists
Before being appointed Secretary of Education, Dr. Paige was credited for the “Houston Miracle,” otherwise known as the “Texas Education Miracle,” – the phrase President George W. Bush used during his 2000 presidential campaign. Paige was put into the spotlight for turning the school district around by dramatically increasing test scores and dropouts in several inner-city high schools were reported near zero by making principals and administrators accountable for how well their students did. This success provided the impetus for the No Child Left Behind program. It turned out that the “miracle” was at best a myth and illusion, if not an outright fraud.

Kaye Stripling took over after Rod Paige was appointed Sec of Ed. It was business as usual at HISD. During her tenure as superintendent, pressure to raise scores from above continued, which meant that administrators continued to distort the truth. She not only continued the hoax, she expanded the myth to include college going behavior.

In 2003, a state audit conducted by Texas Education Agency (TEA) of Houston ISD uncovered not only a dropout hoax but also a “college matriculation” hoax of similar proportions. After the audit was released, Diana Schemo of The New York Times reported that many Houston high schools reported to the state that as many as 100% of their students were planning to attend college when the reality was less than 50 percent were attending.

It even got worse; school violence was getting out of hand. A complete report on the widespread misinformation at Houston ISD regarding its campus violence was broke by New York Times. Dr. Stripling, who made herself unavailable to be interviewed by The Times, held a press conference after the article appeared to denounce it but did not dispute the facts: “I take personal offense at this attack on the public schools of Houston.”

Changing of the Bush Guard
Saavedra was named superintendent in July 2004 after Kaye Stripling stepped down from the post. During Dr. Saavedra’s five-year tenure, he has made sure HISD was not the laugh stock of the nation. Here are few of his accomplishments:

• Achieved a record-breaking number of highly-rated schools—157 Exemplary and Recognized schools under the state’s current accountability system
• Made more progress on the TAKS test than the state average
• Created a college-bound culture throughout the district
• record numbers of HISD students are taking and passing Advanced Placement exams and dual-credit courses to earn college credit while they are still in high school
• Increased SAT scores of HISD students while state and national averages fell
• Established full-day prekindergarten
• Created Reach Out to Dropouts to go door-to-door to get students back into school, which has been replicated nationally, returning more than 5,000 students to school

So why would Abe Saavedra decide to drop this major bombshell? Back in he had told reporters back in October that he intended to stay. To answer this question, it is important to look beyond the surface of text of his statement. In other words, how he framed his message.

During the press conference, Dr. Saavedra said:

My parents taught me to leave a place better than it was when I arrived. I think I will be doing that when I leave HISD sometime within the next year. With the support of the board and the dedication and hard work of our central and regional administrators and their staffs, the tenacity and brilliant work of our principals, and the unwavering dedication and extraordinary work that our teachers perform in their classrooms every day, I am able to leave behind a school district…

There is no question that Saavedra was vague for his sudden retirement, yet, the statement above comes across as Dr. Saavedra has decided that it was better to quit while he was ahead. This would imply, this was more of a timely move to protect his name and legacy than is political cannon fodder.

In this era of accountability and standards, the role of a school superintendent can be mystifying and vague. The truth is, superintendents hold one of the most important and challenging jobs in America’s education system. Most people can explain that the superintendent is responsible for the success or failure of student performance. The truth is, superintendents also face a variety of challenges that are often largely unrelated to teaching and learning.

While nobody was publicly calling for Dr. Saavedra to step down, it is no secret there are some tensions in the relationship between the school board and Abe Saavedra. Last year, there were rumors that the board was trying to dump Superintendent Abe Saavedra instead of renewing his contract. In a pre-emptive move, the Houston Hispanic Chamber of Commerce rallied to show their support for him.

Saavedra had survived and his contract was renewed. The relationship between a superintendent and the board can be complex and must be handled well. It has been reported that Saavedra lacked the political savvy that comes with the job. Lisa Falkenberg of the Houston Chronicle writes:

Time and again, he failed to get buy-in from the board or community leaders on delicate matters like school closures and reform plans for troubled schools. He nearly lost the 2007 bond issue because of communication shortcomings, and he continued to alienate parents in failed attempts to tinker with the district’s most celebrated programs.
…
Being the superintendent of a large urban school district, holding the futures of 200,000 largely disadvantaged students in your hands each day, can’t be an easy job. But it becomes nearly impossible without some political savvy.

Gayle Fallon, spokeswoman for the Houston Federation of Teachers, put it this way: Houston’s schools chief has to work with a strong internal and citywide African-American political structure to run a district that’s 60 percent Hispanic on a tax base that’s largely white. Not to mention the fact that many of those white folks don’t send their children to HISD schools.

The problem with HISD’s school board, some school board members have a tendency to micromanage on issues not within the scope of its responsibility and at times have interfered in the superintendents’ administrative responsibilities. The fact is, Dr. Saavedra is at the mercy of the school board because they the only one who evaluate his performance.

While Saavedra can take credit for improved student achievement, it was district’s $805 million bond referendum and his recent plan to reduce busing to the popular magnet schools that did him in. As school board President Larry Marshall expressed during Dr. Saavedra’s press conference. During the $805 million bond campaign, many people from the Fifth Ward and other traditionally African African neighborhoods were very upset because the initial plan called for the closure of several historically old schools.

School boards and superintendents play a vital role in improving student performance. Level of board involvement in managing the school district and the politics involved can be troubling to many superintendents. This was the case for Dr. Saavedra as well. Back in October when the board renewed his contract, he told reporters that he planned to stay as long as the relationship remained strong. However, something must have happened for him to take the high road and quit while he’s ahead.

Now that Mayor Bill White is termed out, Houston will be electing a new mayor in November. Despite all the good, it is the shortcoming people tend to remember most. Inside sources inform me that Dr. Saavedra and his $805 million bond snafu would have become political cannon fodder to win over the African American vote.

Dr. Saavedra made a wise move, one, he should not have been forced to do. It is a sad day when those who are charged with the responsibility of our public school system allow political agendas come before the education of our children. It is even sadder when politicians take advantage of the situation for their personal gain.

The Democratic National Committee and the Obama campaign announced Tuesday that they will spend $20 million to on outreach to Hispanic voters. During a conference call with reporters, Obama for America National Hispanic Leadership Council Chairman Frank Sanchez and DNCVice-Chair Linda Chavez Thompson described a huge grassroots effort that will mirror Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy, but focus resources on what they called “critical” states such as New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Florida.

Twenty million dollars will be spent on only four states to court the Latino voter, but instead of spreading the wealth, they rather exclude Texas, Arizona, California, Illinois, New Jersey and New York. It is amazing how both the DNC and the Obama campaign can easily decide the to toss aside the top two states with largest Latino/a population, California and Texas.

As a Texan, I am tired of politicians treating this state like their personal ATM and as a Latino from Texas, I am tired of my community being ignored on initiatives like this. We demand some respect!

I guess Texas will always be a bridesmaid, never a bride on election day.

Udpate: I do have to admit I did jump to conclusions. I stand corrected, the $20 million will not be be spent only in four states, as the article states. I was tipped off of the original press release:

The unprecedented $20 million commitment to engage and mobilize Hispanics will include voter mobilization, voter registration, online organizing, community outreach and paid advertising. Part of the effort will also include “Camp Obama” trainings around the country, which will empower Hispanics with the organizing tools and information they need to engage and turn out voters in their home neighborhoods and states. Both the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee also have Hispanic staff involved at every level of the campaign, from field organizers to senior roles.

In other words, the $20 million will be spread through out, but those four critical – swing – states will get a little bit more. This strategy makes perfect sense, than what was alleged by the article I quote above.

Hispanic registered voters support Democrat Barack Obama for president over Republican John McCain by 66% to 23%, according to a nationwide survey of 2,015 Latinos conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center, from June 9 through July 13, 2008.

Both the media and the Hispanic Pew point out that many Latino/a voters have shifted their support to Obama after he defeated his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. This is once again the antagonistic assumption that continues to be forwarded by the media and the pundits that Latinos/as won’t support a black candidate.

The underlying message is that Latinos/as are only voting on emotions, rather than a rational assessments of specific policies offered by the candidates.

The Latino vote will be very influential in the election for the next President of the United States and according to the recent US Census Bureau report, the Latino vote will have an influence during nonpresidential elections.

As the candidates step up their courting of the Latino vote, they are starting to emphasize other issues important to Latinos, especially those in the swing states of Florida, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico; and sadly, not here in Texas.

Has the “sleeping giant” finally awoken from its slumber? I guess we will tell come this November.

According to a new study conducted this year by the New Democrat Network, the Hispanic electorate preferred the Democratic Party to the GOP by 70 percent to 30 percent. The million-dollar question going into the 2008 election is can the Republicans, because of their nativist stance on immigration, make up their lost Hispanic votes?

Historical Preceptive
Things began eroding for the Republican Party soon after Bush’s re-election. However, things started to unravel when the debate over immigration reform divided the Republican Party. When the House passed the “Sensenbrenner Bill,” which criminalized all undocumented immigrants. The bill sparked an immigration movement that led to the huge marches in the Spring of 2006. These marches were considered to one of largest civic demonstrations in the US in more than a generation. In some states and cities, one of the largest civic demonstrations in the state’s and city’s history. Soon after these marches, in GOP led states, many ads began appearing, comparing Mexican immigrants to Islamic terrorists.

Key Republican strategists began voicing their concern that the GOP was alienating their Hispanic base on the immigration issue. In August 2007, top Hispanic Republicans in Texas began voicing their distrust of both the state and national Republican Party. One of Texas’ biggest Latino Republican backers, Latino Republican Massey Villarreal, Hispanic vice chair of the Bush/Cheney campaign and deputy vice chair of the Republican National Convention, announced he would be supporting Democrat Rick Noriega instead of Senator Cornyn in the 2008 elections. Reggie Gonzales, President of the Texas National Hispanic Republican Assembly, urged his fellow Republicans to “vote independently” this election year to send the Republican Party a message. Moreover, if they are still unwilling to listen, then they should consider starting their “own party,” reminiscent of the La Raza Unida Party of the late 1970s.

In a run up to the 2006, general election, a Pew Hispanic Center survey revealed that Hispanics in general had felt “significantly discontented” with both national political parties, but more so with the Republican Party. Many expressed there was an increase in discrimination as a result of the immigration debate. Later that year, the Republican Party paid the price in the November 2006 general election.

In wake of their defeat, which led to a Democrat control congress, Florida Senator Mel Martinez, a first-generation Cuban American, was appointed Chair of the Republican National Committee, hoping to smooth things over with their Hispanic base. However, Latino fears were confirmed as some conservatives objected to Martinez’s selection due to his positions on immigration. One year later, following the resignation of another top Latino official, former Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales, Martinez resigned from his position after he had expressed his frustration over the hard-line stands his party had on immigration. Robert de Posada, president of the Republican-leaning Latino Coalition, was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying, “The message that it sends is Latinos are not welcome. The radical conservative base has a temporary victory right now.”

It’s all about the Veep
This leads back to our starting question: can the Republicans, because of their nativist stance on immigration, make up their lost Hispanic votes? Many would argue that it would take a political miracle to win back the Latino vote; however, there are a few Republican diehards that do have faith that the new Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, can bring them back.

The system of selecting a vice president can assist a party win an election. The vice presidential choice often is made to balance the ticket. Sometimes the vice presidential candidate is chosen because the person is thought to appeal to a large bloc of voters. Now that John McCain won the Republican nomination, whom would he choose as his running mate?

Recently, McCain was asked if he was willing to consider sharing the ticket with Senator John Kerry, since Kerry had approached McCain about being his running mate in 2004. McCain quickly said no.

“He is, as he describes himself, a liberal Democrat,” Mr. McCain said, adding that he meant no offense by the term. “I am a conservative Republican. So when I was approached, when we had that conversation back in 2004, that’s why I never even considered such a thing.”

As many Americans seem eager to rally behind the President, due partly to the dramatic shifts in the public mood triggered by the latest crisis in the credit markets, high unemployment, a housing bubble that has burst, and a likely recession.

Republicans have a history of throwing a curve balls when choosing their running mates. This dates back to Ronald Reagan’s selection of George Herbert Walker Bush. With the advise of Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, everybody expected the creation of a “dream ticket” with former president Gerald Ford running as Ronald Reagan’s vice president, however, Reagan did a 180 and selected his primary opponent, George H W Bush instead.

There are times selecting a vice present does not necessarily produce the person best qualified to serve as vice president. When George H W Bush selected Indiana Senator Dan Quayle as Bush’s running mate, he totally caught the media and political pundits off guard. Like his father, the younger Bush also surprised everybody with his Vice President selection. When political pundits figured it would be Missouri Senator John Danforth who would get the nod, like his father, Dubya also did a 180 and selected Dick Cheney, the man responsible of Bush’s selection process for Vice President.

Will John McCain pick be a surprise too? It is possible. In 2005, the Washington Post ran an article about the possibility of a McCain/Jeb Bush ticket. The article laid out a series of events (scenarios) that would need to occur for this to happen.

Scenario 1: Iraq shows will have to show no sign of turning around quickly. Bush would like to hand over power to a president committed to his Iraq policy. — From the time the article was written, the situation in Iraq has worsen. In an interview with NBC News, President George W Bush stated that the US “could easily” stay in Iraq for ten or more years. As for seeking a successor who is willing to continue his Iraq policy, it seems John McCain has decided to step up to the plate. In January, McCain was quoted as saying the US could stay in Iraq for “maybe a hundred years” and that “would be fine with me.”

Scenario 2: Income growth for the Middle-class will continue to be sluggish, – McCain has shown he is not a total Bush clone. He has been vocal on Bush’s tax policies. Before Mitt Romney dropped out of the race, Romney criticized McCain for opposing President Bush’s tax cuts. However, he is considered to be the most fiscally conservative members of the Senate.

Scenario 3: Bush would well come to see McCain as the only Republican with a chance to push a Republican era forward. McCain, in turn, knows that his only way around the Republican right is to run with either Bush’s blessing and/or endorsement. — Last month, the whole Bush family had welcomed John McCain with open arms. The first Bush to publicly endorsed McCain was former Gov Jeb Bush. Soon after, Former President George H.W. Bush, the Republican political dynasty’s patriarch, publicly endorsed Sen. John McCain for president. Finally, President Bush endorsed Sen. John McCain for president saying that McCain has the “character, courage and perseverance” to lead the country.

From the look of things, all three scenario have actually occurred.

What does Bush bring to the table
Jeb Bush was considered one of the most sought-after endorsements ahead the presidential primary season, now that John McCain has received Bush’s blessing, this could be considered as a way winning over George W. Although Jeb Bush has indicated he has no intentions in running for president in 2008, however, he still has not ruled “in or out” if would consider running for vice president in 2008. It is no secret that the elder Bush has been planting seeds for a possible Jeb campaign.

Last year, after his last public event speech, Jeb Bush, was asked by Spanish-speaking reporters what were his plans for the future. His response “Yo no tengo futuro.” He retracted a week later, saying he “misunderstood” the reporter’s question, according to the New York Times.

As the campaign season kicks into gear, one would think the Republican Party would try to distance themselves from the Bush name, especially when voters have plenty to take out on Republican candidates – financial crisis, rising gas prices, and Bush’s unpopular war. Even though the American people may be experiencing “Bush fatigue,” Republican insiders would most likely have no problems running Jeb Bush, who had a 60% approval rating when he left office. Strategically, running Jeb Bush now could be seen as a win-win situation for him. If McCain won, once McCain leaves office, Jeb would have made a name for himself allowing him to run either in 2012 or 2016. If McCain lost, Jeb would still have enhanced national recognition for him to run in 2012.

The Republican Party knows they will not be able to win without the Latino vote. If a John McCain/Jeb Bush ticket were to come into fruition, their secret weapon in their fight for the Latino electorate would be Jeb Bush’s is his 31-year-old son, George P. Bush or just “P.,” as his family calls him. The son of Florida governor Jeb Bush and his wife, Columba Bush, a native of Guanajuanto, Mexico, George P is one of the grandchildren President Bush referred to as the “little brown ones” during his presidency.

During his uncle’s 2000 campaign, P. was everywhere and was considered to be on his way to becoming the family’s biggest star. It is true politicians have used their children for such ends, but P. has a WOW factor. With a John McCain/Jeb Bush ticket, George P. Bush would once again be utilized as a symbol of diversity to court young and Latino voters.

P. will obviously have factor in his favor: He’s eye candy. During the 2000 campaign, the media would lob him softball questions. Even more valuable is his performance: P.’s is a natural on the stump, and this was seen during the GOP’s national convention. Before his uncle accepted the Republican nomination P. delivered a bilingual speech about inclusion and diversity.

“I am an American,” Bush said to a delighted crowd, “but like many, I come from a diverse background. And I’m really proud of it, and I respect leaders who respect my heritage.”

He also spoke of the commitment both he and his uncle have to education. “My uncle and I share emails,” George P. said, “and they’re not about the Florida Marlins or the Texas Rangers. They’re about education. It’s an interest that I share with my uncle and my dad.”

George P. called George W., “a good man, un hombre de grande sentimientos, who loves his family and his country.”

As he concluded his brief remarks, he exhorted the cheering delegates with a message that combined family and country: “Now is the time to restore a sense of honor and decency to the White House. We can do that by electing my uncle the next president of the United States. Que viva W! Que viva Bush! Que viva los Estados Unidos.“

Before George P. Bush married his law school classmate, Amanda “Mandi” Williams, P. was No. 4 on People magazine’s list of the “Top 100 Eligible Bachelors.”

During Dubya’s re-election campaign, George P. was barely seen on the campaign trail. This was done on purpose because the then 28-year-old would have been asked why George P. wasn’t serving in Iraq if he so much of a patriot. No doubt, these were legitimate questions. However, he has answered his anti-war critics. Last year, Politico reported that George P. Bush joined the Naval Reserve. He also called the death of Pat Tillman, the NFL player and Army Ranger who was killed in a friendly fire incident in Afghanistan in 2004, “a wake-up call.”

What will make P attractive to Latino voters is his pride in his Latino heritage and the fact he is the grandson of a Mexican migrant worker, Jose Maria Garnica, who separated from his wife and still lives in Mexico. If played right, he will once again serve as a new face for the GOP. Another reason why Hispanics may be willing to vote for a McCain/Bush ticket, he is also very outspoken about the immigration issue, actually sounding more like a Democrat than a Republican does.

In a four-day swing through Mexico in 2004, P criticized the Border Patrol’s use of guns which fire plastic pellets packed with chili powder.

“If there has been American approval for this policy, that is reprehensible,” Mr Bush said. “It’s kind of barbarous.” He blamed the use of the guns on “some local INS [immigration service] guy who’s trying to be tough, act macho.” In fact, the use of the guns is federal policy.

There is not doubt that the Hispanic population is booming and is considered to be a swing vote this election season. Using the Texas Democratic Primary as a barometer, the Latino vote proved to be a significant voting bloc. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama can equally claim that the Latino vote were factors in their electoral gains. The Texas border region was the determinant factor in Hillary Clinton’s victory in the Texas primary. Whereas, “Urban Latinos” helped Obama “push the margin of difference between him and Clinton to just three points.”

While it is being reported that Republican insiders are are urging McCain to choose a female running mate as a way to counter a possible Democratic Dream Ticket, history has shown these are just tactics to distract the public and media alike. I would not be surprised if John McCain were to surprise everybody and pick Jeb Bush and neither would James Carville.

If McCain were to ask Jeb Bush to be his running mate and if he were to accept, the Democratic Party will surely have a battle to win the hearts and minds of the Latino electorate. If the only way to counter this, I would recommend that either Clinton or Obama find some way to utilize New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson to the fullest extent.

Within the Hispanic community, there are some who don’t feel they really need to be involve because they are viewed as “others” or if we really want to go with the demeaning labels, mojados, wetbacks.

Spring resident Martinez, 39 [and born in the U.S.], said that “when people think of Mexicans, they don’t think of people like me.” They think of the immigrant and the laborer, not someone who went to college and listens to pop radio.

Here in the US, Hispanics is not considered as a race, but an ethnicity. From the biological point of view, races simply do not exist. From the cultural and political point of view, however, the concept of “race” is extremely important. Mexican national identity has been constructed in terms of the idea that Mexicans are the product of a creative mixing of Indians and Europeans. In Miriam Jimenez Roman’s article entitled “Africa’s Legacy in Mexico: What is a Mexican?,” Roman writes:

in the interest of a national identity based on a mixture of indigenous and European cultural mestizaje. In practice, this ideology of “racial democracy” favors the European presence; too often the nation’s glorious indigenous past is reduced to folklore and ceremonial showcasing.

Mexican Americans were considered an ethnicity minority only after the end of the U.S.-Mexico War of 1848 and the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, when Mexico ceded the territory that today is California, New Mexico, Nevada, and parts of Colorado, Utah, and Arizona, and also approved the prior annexation of Texas.

The treaty promised US citizenship to former Mexican citizens and all Native Americans -who were Mexican citizens – in the ceded territories.

Since 1848 Native Americans and Mexican Americans have struggled to achieve political and social equality within the United States, often citing the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo as a document that promised civil and property rights. Although the treaty promised U.S. citizenship to former Mexican citizens, the Native Americans in the ceded territories, who in fact were Mexican citizens, were not given full U.S. citizenship until the 1930s. Former Mexican citizens were almost universally considered foreigners by the U.S. settlers who moved into the new territories. In the first half century after ratification of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, hundreds of state, territorial, and federal legal bodies produced a complex tapestry of conflicting opinions and decisions bearing on the meaning of the treaty. The property rights seemingly guaranteed in Articles VIII and IX of the treaty (and in the Protocol of Queretaro) were not all they seemed. In U.S. courts, the property rights of former Mexican citizens in California, New Mexico, and Texas proved to be fragile. Within a generation the Mexican-Americans became a disenfranchised, poverty-stricken minority.

It must be noted, these events took place before the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Shedding Indigenous Roots For “Whiteness”
Anglo-Americans never considered Mexicans their racial equals and, moreover, regarded them as mixed peoples. In 1897, a federal district court upheld the right of Mexicans to naturalize under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Ricardo Rodriguez, a native of Mexico who had lived in Texas for ten years, petitioned to become a naturalized U.S. citizen. Government attorneys argued against his eligibility on the grounds that Rodriguez was “not a white person, not an African, nor of African descent.” U.S. District Judge Thomas Maxey wrote:

“as to color, [Rodriguez] may be classed with the copper-colored or red men. He has dark eyes, straight black hair, and high cheek bones.”

Knowing that Mexicans were considered mestizos, the judge had a hard time making his ruling, however, Judge Maxey concluded that because Rodriguez knew “nothing of the Aztecs or Toltecs, [h]e is not an Indian” and therefore Rodriguez was given citizenship. Since then, many communities like their counterpart in Mexico have been trying to “deinidianised” after the Revolution of 1910 by ceasing to identify themselves as Indians. However, in the US, Mexicans were still considered a race as Mae Ngai notes:

by the late 1920s, a Mexican “race problem” had emerged in the Southwest, impelled by contradictions wrought by the burgeoning of commercial agriculture, an all-time high in Mexican immigration, and the formation of a migratory, landless agricultural proletariat and of segregated communities.

Even the 1930 Census Bureau, Mexicans were considered as a separate race, as persons born in Mexico or with parents born in Mexico and who were “not definitely white, Negro, Indian, Chinese, or Japanese.” It was not until the 1940, with the help of Mexico and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the US finally gave in and reclassified persons of Mexican descent as “white.”

In 1929, during the height of a nativist movement, business leaders created the LULAC. It was during this time, the US was at the height of the nativist movement.

When the United States of North America annexed a third of Mexico’s territory following the Mexican War, nearly 77,000 Mexicans became U.S. citizens. For generations, these citizens were to be plagued by a prejudicial attitude which would result in overt acts of discrimination and segregation which in turn brought about the curtailment of many of their civil rights, privileges, and opportunities. The sign, “No Mexicans Allowed” was to be found everywhere.

Prejudicial attitude and discrimination acts in Texas had reached such extreme proportions that Mexican Americans started organizations as defensive measures against such un-American practices. Outstanding among these were three organizations: The Order of the Sons of America with councils in Sommerset, Pearsall, Corpus Christi, and San Antonio. The second was The Knights of America in San Antonio. And the third was The League of Latin American Citizens with councils in Harlingen, Brownsville, Laredo, Penitas, La Grulla, McAllen, and Gulf.

It was during this height in America’s darkest period, discrimination against Mexican Americans ran wild. According to LULAC:

Discrimination against Mexican Americans was awful. One of the best kept secret in American history is that in those years there were more Mexican Americans hung then the total number of blacks that had been hung during the civil war.

It was during this time, Mexican Americans were caught between being a “noble savage” and less than a second class, Hispanics had no other reason but to denounce their heritage just to survive.

In those days, Mexican Americans had to be real careful anytime they gathered. If they gathered in large numbers, they would cause suspicions and faced charges of communism. Yes, there were many that felt insulted and considered LULAC members as a bunch of “vendidos.” They could not understand why LULAC members would go out of their way to embrace an anglo society that had been so cruel to Mexican Americans. However, the founders of LULAC had seen many Mexican American organizations flourish and disappear within a couple of years, and without accomplishments. LULAC founders were determined not to let this occur to LULAC. Therefore, the founders of LULAC, in order to avoid suspicions of un-American activities and a safe haven for its members, forewent many of their convictions. Many of the official rites which LULAC adopted had never be adopted by any other Mexican American organization. Adopted was the American Flag as the official flag, America the Beautiful as the official song, and The George Washington Prayer as the official prayer. Also, adopted were Robert Rules of Order as the governing rules during meetings and conventions.

So why do some Mexican Americans look down on foreign born Hispanic? It’s no secret that many older Mexican Americans resent being lumped together in the “minority” status with immigrants who, they believe, have not suffered the degree of discrimination and exclusion they have. Perhaps some Mexican Americans remember the days when Mexican Americans insisted on their status as whites in the days before affirmative action. Or perhaps some Mexican Americans still have the old caste system ingrained for centuries where the more indigenous you are, the more backward and traditional they are seen. As more young Hispanics are beginning to accept their indigenous roots and as Mexico, Central and South American indigenous groups are excreting their rights, we have to wonder if Hispanics Americans and foreign born Hispanics can find common ground.