Burnt Orange Report

Most Hispanic groups like National Council de la Raza and LULAC are non partisan

Snort! Sure, they're as non-partisan as the Federalist Society.

The last thing Latinos need right now are so-called leaders like Henry Bonilla, who, in order to satisfy partisan objectives, are willing to go on the record in front of national media and portray Hispanics as apolitical, simple-minded, working stiffs.

The last thing Latinos need right now are so-called leaders such as LULAC which, in order to support their partisan political objectives, condescendingly maintain that each and every Hispanic shares the same interests and goals.

As for representational credibility: How do DemocratIC legislators rate with their Hispanic constituents on the issue of abortion?

Hispanic voters care more about economic issues than social, hot button issues. They care about the kitchen table stuff. Yes, most are pro-life just like many black voters, but the quality of life issues trump abortion.

If it wasn't for NW San Antonio turnout, Bonilla would have been sent on down the road.

I wonder how you say "Uncle Tom" in Spanish?

Isn't it lovely how you're free to think and do what you think is right in this country, without consideration for skin color or ethnicity?

Oh, wait.

I think it's divisive and ugly to call people traitors to their race, origins, or ethnicity because of their freely held opinions and principles.

Exactly, groupthink trumps individual liberty and principles everytime.

Oh! I got it! When minorities vote for Democrats its because they're motivated by groupthink and misguided principles, yet when they vote Republicans they're free-thinkers and support individual liberty. I got it now. Shame on me. Heh.

When minorities vote for Democrats its because they're motivated by groupthink and misguided principles, yet when they vote Republicans they're free-thinkers and support individual liberty.

Byron, your irony falls flat, because the inverse is pretty much exactly what you stated in this post.

Well Mark, I really didn't expect you to get my irony, but I understand. I'll spell it out for you...

The point of my post was to reinforce my point that I've made before that Henry Bonilla is not the choice congressmen of the vast majority of Hispanics in his district, despite the fact that Republicans march him around to show how diverse they are! Yes! We have a Hispanic Congressman, too! Vote for us! The fact is that it's just not in the best economic and political self-interest for most minorities to vote Republican. Republicans complain that minorities are coerced and exploited into voting Democrat. Personally, I give Hispanics and Blacks more credit than that. I think that they make resonable and informed decisions to vote based on their best interests.

Democrats claim that Republicans will not vote for Hispanics. Your own arguments disprove that, since, as you say, the majority of Hispanics in the district did not vote for Bonilla - yet he won the election.

Democrats are simply immersed...captivated...steeped...addicted...up to their eyeballs...in race, race, race. It's just sickening after awhile.

Well, if we don't count Bexar County in the mix, Cuellar would have won by a large margin, 57821 for Cuellar to 36057 for Bonilla. I'm going to assume, since I live on this the border region, that most are Hispanics, and I don't think (as traveling recently in Bexar County) that the area represented by Bonilla in that area doesn't have an overwhelming Hispanic majority.

Cuellar Counties (For Cuellar votes)
El Paso (1532), Webb (32,471), Mavrick(4,298), Presido(893), Cluberson(306), Reeves(1363), Zavala(1908), and Dimmit(1723): total votes: 44494

Bonilla Counties (For Bonilla votes)
Kinney (790), Val Verde (4118), Terrel (196), Brewster (1367), Hudspeth(331), Pecos (2256), Regan(638), Utpon (640), Crockett (620), Sutton (731), Edwards (475), Real (817), Uvalde (3485), Medina (7063), Jeff Davis (665): Total Votes:24192

Now, what's my point of all this pointless data, my theory is that Those that were in Cuellar side are more Hispanic than the Bonilla (with only a few shockers like Val Verde).

So, what I should ask mark to do is look at each of these counties and look at census data since I need to get back to homework and also look at the Bonilla section of Bexar to see how Hispanic it is.

BTW: here is the votes per county so you wont have the do the work. Also, since i'm getting lazy, C is Cuellar and B is Bonilla

El Paso
C 1532
B 858

Bexar
C 13246
B 41520

Webb
C 32471
B 5933

Mavrick
C 4298
b 1845

Kinney
C 290
B 790

Val Verde
C 3403
B 4118

Terrel
C 178
B 196

Brewster
C 1039
B 1367

Presido
C 893
B 465

Hudsepth
C 310
B 331

Cluberson
C 306
B 266

Reeves
C 1363
B 1106

Pecos
C 1437
B 2256

Regan
C 124
B 638

Upton
C 188
B 640

Crockett
C 315
B 620

Sutton
C 731
B 290

Edwards
C 206
B 731

Real
C 240
B 817

Uvalde
C 2576
B 3485

Medina
C 2447
B 7063

Zavala
C 1908
B 613

Dimmit
C 1723
B 775

Jeff Davis
C 284
B 665

Whoo, I'll get back to studing now.

Final comment:

"Democrats are simply Immersed...captivated...steeped...addicted...up to their eyeballs...in race, race, race. It's just sickening after awhile."

Well, the other party isn't doing much for racial issues, so someone has to foucs on them!

Small correction (I'll stop I promise!)

"Now, what's my point of all this pointless data, my theory is that Those that were in Cuellar side are more Hispanic than the Bonilla (with only a few shockers like Val Verde)."

I ment to put "probably more hispanic" than what it states.

When minorities vote for Democrats it's because they're motivated by groupthink and misguided principles, yet when they vote Republicans they're free-thinkers and support individual liberty.

No, it should be:

When minorities who vote or run as Republicans are called "Uncle Toms" and "traitors", they're free-thinkers and support individual liberty. And brave, as well. I'm sure it's not a good feeling to be called those names or treated with suspicion because you don't vote with your skin color.

What I'm reading in this post, Byron, is that Bonilla's election win doesn't really count because a majority of an ethnic group he happens to have been born to didn't vote for him. In addition, (white) Republicans are obviously racist because they only vote for a ethnic minority candidate when the candidate shares similar philosophy as a Republican.

That suggests that the only legitimate minority candidate is one who follows the herd and runs a campaign based on the special interests of that particular minority. Which in every case, means the Democratic Party - a coalition of special interest groups.

When minorities who vote or run as Republicans are called "Uncle Toms" and "traitors", they're free-thinkers and support individual liberty. And brave, as well. I'm sure it's not a good feeling to be called those names or treated with suspicion because you don't vote with your skin color.

And tokenism isn't any less offensive?

The Austin Chronicle weighed in on this too...

Bonilla seconded Dewhurst con mucho gusto, although he was careful to remain stolidly monolingual. He said that by staying in Albuquerque the Democrats were violating the family values and work ethic of Hispanics and setting a bad example for the children. "When immigrants come to this country," said Bonilla, "they come here because they want to be Texans, they want to be Americans, and they want to assimilate, with this great opportunity that we have in this country, and take advantage for it with their children and grandchildren. ... Racially divisive debates are not welcome in this state by any ethnic group."

Bonilla also dismissed what he called "professional minority groups," singling out for criticism the League of United Latin American Citizens (which opposes re-redistricting). "At least 99% of Hispanics are not associated with LULAC or any of the Hispanic groups," Bonilla insisted, and pointed to himself and his District 23 (which stretches south to Laredo and west to El Paso) as testimony that not all Hispanics are Democrats. He continued that the important issues -- education, economic development, health care -- are neither Republican nor Democratic. "The great myth that ... the shade or the color of your skin determines your political philosophy," Bonilla continued, "is a great disservice to minorities."

Holy Frijoles

It all sounded reasonable enough. Alas for Dewhurst and Bonilla, even as they spoke, the Texas Republican Party was airing an attack radio ad in South Texas aimed at one of the missing Democrats, McAllen Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa. As described by the McAllen Monitor, the ad reported Hinojosa's voting record in misleading terms, but its delivery was more significant: "The radio spot features two unidentified actors -- one female, the other an older male -- speaking in cartoonish, thickly Mexican-accented English." Juan Maldonado, chair of the Tejano Democrats, told the Monitor, "That's the mentality that the Republicans have of our part of the state. They think we're still sleeping under a cactus with a big sombrero and don't know how to speak English."

From Albuquerque, Hinojosa said he had thought that the days of portraying Latinos as "Frito Banditos" were over. Dewhurst and his spokesman Dave Beckwith disclaimed any knowledge of the ad, but Party spokesman Ted Royer stepped into the breach, saying Hinojosa and the others should know better than to describe the radio actors as "too Hispanic." Perhaps Royer is seeking the nomination for "Too Thick." (On Monday, party Chair Susan Weddington apologized for the ad.)

So far as the Chronicle knows, Henry Bonilla -- whose previous professions were in television and public relations -- hasn't weighed in on the radio controversy, but it nicely exemplifies the predicament Texas Republicans have devised for themselves. They want to denounce the absent Democrats on political grounds, but in wooing Anglo voters, they can't seem to help reaching reflexively for the ethnic weaponry. They insist they want to reach out to Hispanic American and African-American voters -- yet they persist in the pretense that it is simply a coincidence that all of the state's minority senators, and all of the senators who represent majority-minority districts, broke the Senate quorum and fled to New Mexico rather than submit to the imposition of new congressional districts. The Dems insist those districts will effectively disenfranchise more than a million minority Texans, by eliminating any substantive influence they now have on the outcome of the congressional elections in half a dozen districts.

That remains the central issue of the re-redistricting controversy. It is not a question whether Anglo Republican senators -- or the Anglo Republican governor, lieutenant governor, and House speaker -- personally like or dislike their minority colleagues, nor if their affections are returned in kind. What matters is whether the leadership's official actions -- and by extension, the actions of the state of Texas -- serve to reinforce or aggravate racial disparities in the state and to marginalize the votes and interests of minority voters.

Jim, you ought to post that last comment on the site. Great article.