The American Spectator : The Man From La Fortaleza

Text Size

The Man From La Fortaleza

By John H. Fund from the February 2012 issue

Luis Fortuño says -- convincingly -- that Republicans must do a better job reaching out to Hispanics.

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico -- Hispanic voters will play a key role in determining if President Obama wins reelection. In 2008, he was able to take the Democratic share of the Hispanic vote to 67 percent, up ten points from what John Kerry got against George W. Bush four years earlier. In the next election, Hispanics are likely to make up nearly 9 percent of the total vote, and in key states such as Florida they represent one-seventh of all eligible voters.

Such numbers have led many to suggest that the Republican Party's next nominee should select an Hispanic running mate. Florida Senator Marco Rubio tops everyone's list, but he has said he "absolutely" doesn't want the job -- and he might just really mean it. New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, a former prosecutor, is sometimes mentioned. But she remains untested on the national stage and when the GOP convention rolls around she'll have only been in office as a governor the same number of days as Sarah Palin was in 2008 when named to the ticket.

But there is another intriguing possibility. Luis Fortuño is the 51-year-old governor of Puerto Rico, whose four million people have all been U.S. citizens since 1952, making their governor eligible to become vice president. Mr. Fortuño made history in 2004 by being elected the island's lone delegate to the U.S. House as a conservative and followed up that feat in 2008 by being elected governor with the largest margin of any predecessor since the 1960s. His party not only won control of the legislature by historic margins but also won the power to name three supreme court judges, giving that body its first conservative majority in history.

But the reasons for his sweep were sobering. The economy was in meltdown, suffering from a recession that began in 2006, predating the one on the U.S. mainland by two years. "I inherited a deficit that was proportionately speaking the largest in the country, representing 44 percent of revenues," Fortuño told me recently in an interview at La Fortaleza, the 500-year-old medieval castle that serves as the island's seat of executive power. "We had to take a loan to get enough money to meet our first payroll." The state had had negative economic growth throughout the previous decade. Fortuño recalls, "My wife asked me if we could seek a recount."

The previous government's answer had been to spend money and raise taxes. When Fortuño took office, a staggering one out of three Puerto Ricans worked for the state and a new sales tax of 7 percent had been imposed.

Fortuño shifted everything into reverse. "The people expected leadership," he told me. "I went on TV to tell the public exactly what we faced and what we needed to do. People will respect you if they see you are doing what you see is right and what you promised to do."

So he immediately cut spending by 20 percent and laid off 17,000 state workers, enduring weeks of protests. He reduced the top corporate tax rate from 41 percent to 30 percent, with a further reduction scheduled down to 25 percent. Individual income tax rates were cut by a quarter in 2010 and entire government agencies privatized. ("They will do a better job. They will do it cheaper.")

He also attacked red tape. A small army of 250 police were in charge of approving liquor licenses. Fortuño reassigned almost all of them to other tasks. Whereas it had once taken 28 different regulations and permits to open a small business, Fortuño reduced that to one simple procedure that can be done online.

Fortuño says his political philosophy is rooted in his admiration of Ronald Reagan's conservative principles. "I was a student at Georgetown in D.C. as Carter was failing as president and being replaced by Reagan," he recalls. "I was so inspired by Reagan I licked envelopes for him. I saw how he revitalized an economy and country by freeing the American people to be free and industrious."

Today, Puerto Rico has stabilized and is in the recovery room. Unemployment is still high at 15.7 percent, but that's down from more than 17 percent at the height of the crisis. The island has the highest bond rating in 35 years. Standard & Poor's has given Puerto Rico its first positive economic review since 1983. Companies ranging from Coca-Cola to Merck and Walmart are expanding operations.

There are sticking points. The number of murders hit a record in 2011, fueled by the transfer of much of the drugs and weapons trade from the more closely watched U.S.-Mexican border to the Caribbean. Governor Fortuño has pledged to spend $52 million more next year on enhanced police training and higher salaries. Polls show the governor trailing his most likely opponent when he runs for reelection in 2012, but he is confident the improving economy will prompt voters to reward him with a second term.

BUT WHAT IF HE GETS a call asking him to join the GOP presidential ticket? Fortuño isn't eager for that conversation, saying "that isn't going to happen" but avoiding a definitive statement that he wouldn't take the job.

He says Republicans must do a better job reaching out to Hispanics in America, noting that they believe in many core conservative principles such as hard work, family values, and entrepreneurship. "Whether I was campaigning for [now Senator] Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania or Marco Rubio in Florida, I could feel a willingness to give Republicans a second chance if we have the right message," he told me.

Luis Fortuño would certainly be an out-of-the-box pick for vice president but it would likely represent shrewd politics. Florida alone has 800,000 Puerto Ricans living within its borders, and every one of the adults in that group is eligible to vote. Puerto Ricans also make up enough of the voting population in Pennsylvania and New Jersey to put those states potentially in play for the GOP.

But whatever his future holds, Governor Fortuño has already earned a profile in courage award for showing that even the most dismal economies can respond to doses of the right fiscal medicine.

About the Author

John H. Fund is a senior editor of The American Spectator and author of the Stealing Elections (Encounter Books).

Letter to the Editor View all comments (65) | Leave a comment

Tommy Frisco| 2.17.12 @ 8:55AM

WTF? It would be ridiculous to choose a VP from Puerto Rico. And, although Fortuno is a U.S. citizen, he does not meet the NBC requirements as defined in the 1875 Supreme Court decision Minor vs Happersett. Why is it that so many conservative pundits, especially those like Mark Levin, continue to ignore that Supreme Court decision? Like it or not, it is the law.

We should be able to win this election without having to pander to any particular groups or ignoring the laws of the land as Obama has done. This election should be about saving America for ALL Americans.

Old Soldier| 2.17.12 @ 9:25AM

There are lots of Supreme Court rulings I ignore. The man was born in the United States - good enough for me.

Juan Jose Morales-Castillo| 2.17.12 @ 11:15AM

The party of misFortuno is so notorious for its venality and corruption that there's a famous joke that says that the New Progressive Party is the Puerto Rican version of the Mafia.

Tommy Frisco| 2.17.12 @ 11:22AM

Old Soldier,
So, you're okay with Obama ignoring the laws that he doesn't like? You're okay with him ignoring the Constitution? We used to expect more experience from our VP & POTUS. Fortuna has been Governor only three years and over a territory that has only four million people. Has Obama lowered the bar so much that you would be happy with anyone born in the U.S. to become second in line to become the leader of the the free world?

RJ| 2.17.12 @ 1:06PM

Minor v. Happersett didn't resolve the issue. The applicable part of the opinion states: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

I remember when Mr. Fortuño was in Congress, he asked Justice Thomas during Congressional testimony, whether Mr. Fortuño was eligible to be President. Justice Thomas said he didn't know.

The tragedy is that the meaning of "a natural born Citizen" in Article 2 should have been resolved before Obama ran for President. I seriously doubt that anyone during the early days of the Republic would have believed that the son of a man who was a visitor to the country would have been considered a "natural born Citizen." But views change and today the decision could very well have been different, but it was not considered at the time. Surprisingly, however, in 2008, the Senate, with Obama voting in support, decided to review the eligibility of John McCain because he was born in the US Canal Zone in Panama because his father, a US Naval officer, was based there.

Tommy Frisco| 2.17.12 @ 2:15PM

I believe the tragedy is that there has never been an enforcement mechanism for the VP & POTUS eligibility requirements. The Senate is not required to investigate the eligibility issue. It is bizarre that Obama co-sponsored the 2008 referendum that declared McCain was eligible, yet the Senate did not pretend to be interested in Obama's eligiblity. McCain's past was well known whereas we still know very little about Obama's past...other than what we are told.

RJ| 2.17.12 @ 3:45PM

I agree, enforcement is pretty weak. And since John Fund wrote this article, I would like to mention that his book "Stealing Elections" is a good read on how weak American election laws and procedures are in ensuring voting is limited to living, legally-eligible voters and that their "one" vote is accurately counted.

RCV| 2.17.12 @ 3:30PM

What nonsense Tommy Frisco continues to spread about Minor v Happersett. Minor did not even address the issue of who was a "natural born citizen." It simply affirmed the citizenship of American women but held that citizenship did not necessarily confer voting rights.

On the definition of "natural born citizen",which was not an issue in the case it simply observed in dictum as follows:

"The constitution does not in words say who hall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural born citizens, as distinquished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born in the United States without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts but never as to the first. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THOSE DOUBTS." (emphasis supplied)

TommyFrisco| 2.18.12 @ 9:47AM

Yes, Minor addressed women's right to vote, but it also defined who is a natural born citizen.

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168

You are also correct in that a person can be considered to be a citizen of the U.S. without regard to the citizenship status of their parents. They are not, however defined as natural born citizens and eligible to become VP or POTUS as defined in the Constitution.

In the case of Puerto Ricans, they have been considered U.S. citizens since 1917, but they have only been granted fundamental rights as U.S. citizens. For example, they have never been eligible to vote in our Presidential elections.

Look, RCV, I am not a lawyer and I'm not a birther. I do respect the laws of our nation and feel that our Founding Fathers did an amazing job of establishing how this new country should be governed. It's very clear that they wanted to do everything they could to ensure that candidates to VP and POTUS were loyal to the U.S.. We all know and undertstand that our parents can have a tremendous impact in shaping our views. There is nothing wrong about the basic requirements that our Founding Fathers established for becoming the leader of our country.

trundle| 2.19.12 @ 8:45AM

Mr. Frisco, are you sure about Puerto Ricans not being able to vote in Presidential elections?

Above you wrote, "For example, they have never been eligible to vote in our Presidential elections."

On March 18th 2012 Puerto Ricans will have opportunity to vote in the Republican primary for the president. Eight days prior to this Guam and U.S. Virgin Island will have their Caucuses Five days prior American Samoa have its GOP caucus.

It would be very odd to me that U.S. servicemenber from Puerto Rico are under a Commander in Chief who directs the fates of their lives yet they cannot vote for him. (Puerto Ricans make up a disproportionately very large number of members in our U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marines.)

Our ignorance of what our fellow countrymen have as "lessers status" as one living in Washington, D.C. and certainly all who live in our seven U.S. Territories, this ignorance is both alarming and shameful.

RJ| 2.19.12 @ 2:20PM

Whether Puerto Ricans can vote in the national election depends upon their residency. The Presidential Election is decided by the Electoral College, which consists of states and the District of Columbia. US citizens residing in Puerto Rico do not vote in the Presidential election because Puerto Rico, not being a state, does not have any electoral votes. That doesn't stop some of them from voting however. One of my college professors said his mother set up a false address in New York so she could vote for President as a "resident" of New York.

Seth| 2.20.12 @ 11:12AM

As a current resident of Puerto Rico, I would like to answer the rest of your questions. You are correct; we are voting in a primary on the 18th. No, we don't get a vote in the general election. If a service member has a home of record different than his current duty station, he can apply for an absentee ballot to vote in his state's elections. I served for 11 years, all over the world, and only voted in one state. As far as representation; the island of Puerto Rico has never been properly represented in the federal government. The agreement between P.R. and the Fed's is one congressman representing over 4 million citizens, and (if I remember correctly) he can only vote on bills that affect P.R. directly. (the bill has to basically say P.R. will be affected, otherwise, no vote) The best part is that we pay federal taxes without a proper voice. Don't feel to bad for us though. I'm pretty sure we take more money from the states than we pay to them.

trundle| 2.21.12 @ 1:16AM

Seth, thank you.

But that is just weird. You are participating in a GOP presidential primary in just 26 days but Puerto Ricans CANNOT? Then vote in a general election for the President/VP candidates.

Bizarre.

Folks, this makes no sense. None.

Seth, if Puerto Ricans could vote in November elections every four years for presidential tickets, what would you see/foresee as the trends?

Mr ED| 2.18.12 @ 11:31AM

"This election should be about saving America for ALL Americans."

And yet what we have is the exact opposite. I just see this as more Leftist inspired blather spewed in an effort to put the average citizen where the politicans and media scum want them - on the defensive. The main idea they are trying to sell is that tribalism is alive, well, and good and that we better learn to play up and appeal to tribal allegiences in order to stay in power. Whom, exactly, is the party in power to represent? Obviously themselves.

Since when did the "conservative" party consider simple tribal allegiences, whether they be racial, cultural, behavioural, et al to be not only worthy of consideration, but worthy of Leftist style appeasement? I am sick to death of hearing from both the Leftist MSM and RINOmedia that "we" - the conservative base of what used to be the Republican party - must bend over backwards to appease the Latino-first tribe or any other cobbled together tribe (gays, women, Latinos, blacks, ad nauseum) or all is lost? The very simple idea of a color-blind (and blind to other tribalisms too) society where we strive to eliminate any tribal privileges has been brushed aside by the power brokers of both the Left and what used to be the Right to rush accomodation to the very Leftist idea of tribal accomodation and privilege, because it is useful to them, the politicians and power brokers.

So, do ALL Latinos regard themselves to be latinos FIRST and Americans second, because that is what they are saying. And supposing that is true (I do not suppose it is myself) what that really means is the Latinos as a group have allegience to their tribe FIRST and foremost. Any allegience to this country, the language, history, borders, laws or their fellow citizens comes in somewhere down the line.

Is this REALLY what we have decended to? Reducing us all into ever smaller tribes of ever smaller and tighter allegiences is good only for the politicians and talking heads who wish to pit us all against each other for their own selfish purposes. Period.

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.17.12 @ 9:05AM

"New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, a former Prosecutor, is sometimes mentioned. But she remains 'Untested' on the National Stage', and when the GOP Convention rolls around, she will have only been in Office (Governor of New Mexico) the same amount of days that Sarah Palin had been, before she was picked for blah blah blah blah blah.

What's your point? This is for the Veep slot. Funerals. Convenient Store Openings. JOE BIDEN is the Vice President, and it appears that he will be on the Ticket, once again. So, again. What's your Point.

We have a President, right now, who had less experience than either Governor Palin or Governor Martinez. How's that working out?

Do you think that Vice President Palin would be pushing for Unilaterally DISARMING our Nuclear Deterrent? Do you think that Vice President Martinez would have put an ILLEGAL Drilling Moratorium in place, or told the Canadians to stick their Pipeline up their ass?

I agree that Fortuna would be "Out of the Box". But Fiscally Conservative is a LONG WAY from being Socially Conservative. I see nothing from him on the Border. Does he want Puerto Rico to become the 51st State? Where did he stand on the Naval Base Situation? And from what you're telling us about the conditions in Puerto Rico? He's still got a long way to go.

I'll take Governor Martinez, if you don't mind.

missbosslady| 2.17.12 @ 9:15AM

So, the only way to attract hispanic voters is to have an hispanic on the ticket. What a ridiculous concept. What are we saying here? Hispanics won't vote based on ideology or principles?

As a non-hispanic this kind of talk is insulting and I would say that it is just as insulting to a free thinking hispanic.

I detest pandering and those that need to be pandered to.

Should I drop a note to the RNC and let them know they can capture my vote as long as there is an Irish-American on the ticket?

Ridiculous!

Old Soldier| 2.17.12 @ 9:23AM

I agree with your notion on racial pandering. As a fiscal conservative, I hope the Republicans come to their senses and pander a little to me - and Governor Fortuño fits that role far better than anyone currently in the race.

loulou| 2.17.12 @ 10:39AM

I'm tired of Fund of the pro amnesty WSJ and his constant harranguing about "reaching out." It depends on what the definition of reaching out is.

Here's my definition of reaching out: Treat everyone equally regardless of their ethnicity or religion.

loulou| 2.17.12 @ 10:37AM

Marco Rubio is a man of character--he knows that he is a "native born" US citizen, not a "natural born" US citizen which is a requirement to be POTUS. At the time of his birth, neither of Rubio's parents were US citizens. That makes him "native born." His parents became citizens following his birth.

These are facts--get used to it. Rubio does not need to be president to make a great contribution to our country.

Tommy Frisco| 2.17.12 @ 11:46AM

LouLou, thanks for bringing a little sanity into the conversation about Rubio. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy, but he's only been on the national stage for one year, for God's sake! His speeches are great, but we need to see how he votes over the years. I've read that he is weak on immigration, but I don't know about that yet. It's too soon to tell.

missbosslady| 2.17.12 @ 12:06PM

loulou,

You're obviously not one of my fellow South Floridians, for if you were you would not be able to utter the phrase "Marco Rubio is a man of character".

Rubio is the GOPs Obama. Looks right, says the right things, great "story", no executive experience of any kind.....you get the picture.

So desperate is the GOP for it's own"racial" candidate that they are willing to commit the same mistake many Americans did in 2008 and rally around someone that they know almost nothing about beyond some pretty speeches and a good story.

Sheesh!

Moe Blotz| 2.17.12 @ 12:59PM

Good point, Governor Bobby Jindal looks and sounds better than Senator Rubio.

JmsA| 2.17.12 @ 2:57PM

How terribly sad it must be for you to watch as millions of your fellow Floridians voted for Mr. Rubio instead of (probably your choice), Mr. Crist. You must really hate the man to compare him to the current socialist White House occupant.

missbosslady| 2.18.12 @ 9:40AM

JmsA,

Thank you for your juvenile response.

I, in fact voted for Rubio for the Senate as there was no other choice, but love the snarky "probably your choice" remark.

Clearly, the intent of my post flew right over your head. Rubio is unknown, just like Obama was, but the right is committing the same sin in flocking around this unknown just because he gives good speechs and has an interesting story.

Tell me, oh snarky one, just what do you know about Rubio's political record prior to running for the US Senate? My guess is you know absolutely nothing.

So, since I'm all grown up I don't "hate" the man, but I know the man and he is not what he has made you believe. He has a record prior to his winning his senatorial race and it isn't pretty if you're a conservative.

rnd| 2.19.12 @ 8:12AM

missbosslady, thank you. I appreciate your comments on what you know from Southern Florida in this blog spot for reader comments. So often we have people expressing opinions, but they are nowhere near the scene. I think you understand.

I also agree on U.S. Sen. Rubio. Still way too young, way too untested. Just winning an office seat is easy. It is what you do once there (and once having faced numerous attempts to corrupt and twist a person). And, frankly, we non Floridians do not know what Rubio was doing in your statehouse. Some of it, well, some of it (as one reads a bit into it) does not sound very good.

We all need to be more circumspect.

And, to be honest, I tire greatly of Marco Rubio's own version of his Log Cabin story. Must that come up over and over? (He is often the one doing the telling --- Doesn't he get it? That really doesn't work. And it comes across as self-aggrandizement, ego, narcissism, almost about 97% of the time.)

JmsA's response made a huge assumption about if or how you voted; his response was indeed juvenile.

Mike Hawk| 2.18.12 @ 9:54AM

OK, once again boneheads. Natural born citizen is codified by law in Title 8 Section 1401 of the U.S. Code and fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the criteria for people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:" That is, natural born citizens.
Marco Rubio's and Bobby Jindal's parents were legal residents when they were born in the US. Rubio in Miami and Jindal in LA. They are both eligible to be President as they are natural born citizens.

I suppose for some of you idiots, a person delivered by C-section would not be 'natural born'. If you thinkl I'm kidding some California ditz made that suggestion awlie back.

TommyFrisco| 2.18.12 @ 11:34AM

Mike,
In reviewing Title 8 Section 1401, that code addresses "Nationals and Citizens of the United States at birth." It is not in conflict with the Constitution or Minor v Happersett because it does not use the term "natural born citizen."

Like it or not, there are multiple classes of citizenship in the U.S.. The Puerto Ricans are a great example. They are allowed to govern themselves, but they are not allowed to vote in our Presidential elections or shape U.S. policy.

There have been multiple attempts by the Democrats in Congress and the MSM to redefine the "natural born" class of citizenship since Obama's candidacy for POTUS was first being strategized in 2003. However, the NBC requirement for VP and POTUS is still the law of the land. Unfortunately, even many conservatives, like Mr. Fund, are willing to ignore our laws and the intent of our Founding Fathers in order to get their candidate elected.

Mike Hawk| 2.18.12 @ 6:43PM

What the hell are you talking about.?? Obama's natural born citizen status is based on Title 8 Seb 1401 not someone's opinion.

Tommy Frisco| 2.20.12 @ 9:34AM

Title 8 Sec 1401 does not use the term "natural born citizen."

Listen , Mike, I am not a bonehead. I am a concerned citizen who has spent about 100 hours of my own time trying to get to the bottom of this NBC issue. The boneheads are our representatives in DC who have completely screwed up our election system over the last 250 years. The citizenship issue should be simple, but it is not. Voting procedures should be simple, but they are not. That's because the people we send to DC are stupid and the longer they are in office, the more corrupted they become.

tempest in Tea Town| 2.21.12 @ 1:24AM

Tommy, you are correct. Voting: Who is eligible, how one registers, and how/when one votes OUGHT TO ALL BE VERY SIMPLE.

Just like swiftly being able to ID vote fraud perpetrators.

It is not just that our elected officials and controlling bureaucrats are corrupt, THEY WANT THIS VERY CLOUDY, MURKY CONFUSION.

They facillate and perpetuate the vagaries while adding more laws and regulations (by the ton) on franchise issues -- to make investigating that much more difficult.

Just one example, my pet peeve:

When an adult picture ID or driver's license (in essence) cost no more than $10.00 and are good for a decade before needing renewal, COLOR photo ID must be the standard at polling stations to help hapless (mostly volunteer) poll station workers keep the frausters out.

Yet our legislators and governors do not even push for photo IDs as mandatory.

As most people drive themselves about upwards of 75% of the time to go vote on election days, why is asking for a photo ID (on the driver's license, with printed name) so unreasonable?

LMajito| 2.17.12 @ 11:08AM

What a bunch of bs...i'm a man of latin american ancestry (and 50% french blood)...i have voted with GOP because they represent more my views than democrats...even when i was introduced to the national political arena by an old time democrat...Scoop Jackson of Washington state.

But i laugh at all these pandering moves...it doesn't work because latinos do not vote as a block....cubans hate colombians, puerto rican hate mexicans, and most residents of latin america hate the latinos that have lived in the us for over 10 years.

many of the ones that were born and grew up in the us, specially if mom and pop were not wealthy, like the democratic plan of paying the citizen for everything...look at the commercials in the spanish language tv channels in cities like houston, about this time are all kind of deals for those that get an irs refund...why? that extra money per child credit...and if you had an adoption in the mix that's another $7500...so if a couple have adopted 4 kids, they know that's $30 grand...these folks like democrats yes sir...

however, there is one item often forgotten, these folks hardly ever vote. latinos make up the largest minority ethnic group yet barely of the ones eligible to vote are about 20% of this 20% less than 10% will vote...

in this case i will tell the pr governor, remember JFK...'is not what you country can do for you'...in this case is not what the party can do for you...get off you backside, join the party and make it your party.

most latin americans come to the us seeking opportunity to progress financially and move up the ladder of success not to be wardens of the state...latinos, as a general rule, distrust governments and for good reasons...

i know a very prosperous business owner, during the bush years his business was generating over 40 million per year in sales, who decided to 'make history' and voted for BHO...after the banks under obamas reign closed the credit on small business, his business went bankrupt and he is now working for some outfit trying to sell pool chemicals earning less than 30k/yr...when he told me the story i was very sad but then i asked him...so you did made history with obama but not the kind you wanted...

rubio can't be vp so guys quit the bs about marco...i kind of remember all those that wanted to change the constitution so ahhrnold could move from sacramento to dc as president...

missbosslady| 2.17.12 @ 12:09PM

Exactamente!

PCP Smoker| 2.17.12 @ 8:19PM

Great point. I find it funny when republicans and, even, conservatives assume that the Nixon-created classification of "hispanic", actually has any meaning. A Colombian has nothing to do, other than the same mother tongue, with a Mexican. Similarly, a wealthy Mexican has little in common with a dirt poor Mexican.
Majito, you should hold a seminar for Repubics on the concept of "individuality."

Fred Farkel| 2.18.12 @ 9:42AM

They do not all Speak 'Spanish' . Mexicans speak a dialect not easily understood in Bogota. Same with Puerto Rico (even worse). Cubans speak a 'purer' Spanish than the rest. A comparison would be someone from the deep south Mississippi Delta conversing with a Yankee from Maine. It would be hard to understand. Better yet, A 'Berummy' from Birminghan, England trying to talk to a southerner from Birmingham, Alabama. Damn near two different languages. Ebonics anyone?

missbosslady| 2.18.12 @ 10:58AM

Fred,

I live in Miami so I need to correct you on one point. What the Cubans speak can barely be called Spanish. Their diction, and slang is so atrocious as to be almost unrecognizable to one who speaks a proper form of Spanish, such as Castillon.

More importantly, Cubans as with the rest of the hispanic subsets, believe that in the latino world they are superior to the others. However, more often than not they would support the rights of the hated Nica (Nicaraguan), illegal or otherwise, over those of a fellow anglo-American any day of the week.

Mike Hawk| 2.18.12 @ 6:39PM

Colloquial language of Cuba would be true. However the formal Spoken word is much on the Castillian level, same as is found in Columbia and other. Local coloquialisms and slang are difficult to understyand anywhere. I wasn't referring to the Miami dialects either, but the spoken word in the coutries themselves, nonetheless it is a truth that none of them speaks a pure Spanish that a Spaniard would recognize.

Moe Blotz| 2.18.12 @ 8:27AM

What type of hair are you non-birthers trying to split? Let's take the term "natural born" one step further. One interpretation could be that only a US citizen born out of wedlock can be elected President. How about that? The President of the United States has to be a bastard.

GENE HAUBER| 2.17.12 @ 12:24PM

WHY DON'T HISPANICS REACH OUT TO AMERICA AND ASSIMILATE INTO THEIR NEW COUNTRY....HUH??
QUE PASA??
I LIVED IN SPAIN FOR 9 YEARS AND THEY NEVER REACHED OUT TO ME.........YOU MEX'S GOT IT BACKWARDS, AS USUAL

Quartermaster| 2.17.12 @ 12:37PM

Outreach, telling them the truth and teh results of what the left wants to do, is fine. Pandering to them because they have Latin American names is a bridge much too far. There is a party of people that do that kind of trash. We call them Democrats.

Pat| 2.17.12 @ 1:25PM

Wow, a strong Conservative politician who speaks Spanish and knows when to order menudo – for the Republican Party he’s a future candidate for high office, a dream come true. But that’s all it is – a dream. Governor Fortuno says Hispanics believe in core conservative values – “family, hard work and entrepreneurship” – and this is complete and utter nonsense spoken by a politician who may someday ask for your vote.

Perhaps within the mythical American state of La Mancha there are right wing, hard core conservative Hispanics but not here in California. It’s true that Hispanics within the Golden State have voted for non-Hispanics over Hispanic politicians – it happened several years back when Gringo Pete Wilson offered the state’s Hispanics more in government handouts than his Hispanic opponent did. Hispanics like government freebies, they expect the government to help them, they don’t care who the government taxes in order to help them – and not surprisingly these values sound very similar to Democratic Party values.

Nearly 53% of Hispanic births in California are out of wedlock – an example of strong family values? The children of Hispanic immigrants, legal or illegal, are more than likely to join local street gangs, some families are in their second generation of gang membership – like multi-generational UAW membership among Detroiters, only without those little metal union buttons pinned to their jackets. Are lower taxes, no nationalized healthcare and individual self-reliance hot topic issues among California’s Hispanics – sure, maybe in some Hollywood movie they are, but in Southern California the Democrats rabidly support amnesty and no questions asked legalization because they thoroughly understand what the real Hispanic issues are.

The black vote is completely lost to the Republican Party, they’ve accepted that but have pinned their hopes on recruiting Hispanics to the Party. Visit California, particularly the L. A. metroplex, and see first-hand what a fever dream that is. For white conservative voters, a political alliance with Hispanics seems like the perfect counter to the Democrats and their control of the black vote – but that is never going to happen in the foreseeable future. Hispanics within America have their own culture, it’s not a culture inherited from Northern European forebears, it reflects their own day to day reality and it isn’t likely to embrace conservative values – let’s accept that fact and move on.

PCP Smoker| 2.17.12 @ 8:15PM

You are right. Look up Heather McDonald's article on City Journal on the subject. The fact is that liberals of any stripe and religion, black latinos, catholic, jew, etc, will vote liberal over anyone else.

Mike w| 2.19.12 @ 11:11PM

You said better than anyone else.

The question I have is why we are getting Fund and others like him on TAS?

Rafael Prieto| 2.17.12 @ 2:58PM

Before I finish reading the article, I want to point out that Puerto Ricans were granted the american citizenship in 1917 (not in 1952 as the author states).

Steve| 2.17.12 @ 7:43PM

I support a guy from America Samoa instead.

PCP Smoker| 2.17.12 @ 8:12PM

I was a student at Georgetown in D.C. as Carter was failing as president and being replaced by Reagan," he recalls. "I was so inspired by Reagan I licked envelopes for him."

He contradicts himself. He is/was, as a Hispanic, inspired by Reagan during the 80 election. Except that RR did not go around pandering to this group or that group. He spoke of freedom, individual liberty, and the melting pot.
Perhaps, this idiotic message of outreach to group X and group Y can be junked, along with JEB and W Bush and the WSJ, and we can get back to speaking first principles to AMERICANS.

Claymore| 2.18.12 @ 6:31AM

Correct. Thank you PCP.

This article is just all WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. What is Mr. Fund thinking?

It matters not whether a person has purple skin, long, straight neon orange hair, or kaleidoscope eyes.

What matters is:

Law-abiding citizens, freedom loving, hard-working, moral, reliable, self-reliant, and those with a willingness at times to aid in greater-than-oneself events, projects.

Those are the people you are interested in.
Any American citizens that embrace that is worthy of consideration.

It is the content of a person's heart, mind, and character that must be the focus. THE ONLY FOCUS.

I'd never speak to just one or two demographics. That's plain stupid. After all, what exactly is a demographic?

Speak to all Americans who want to work hard, care for themselves, raise healthy families and keep America the best place to live in the world.

IGNORE those who are uninterested in faith, freedom, and U.S. Constitution values.

Tumult| 2.18.12 @ 6:08AM

The author of this article, Mr. Fund, writes, "In 2008, he (meaning Pres. Obama) was able to take the Democratic share of the Hispanic vote to 67 percent, up ten points from what John Kerry got against George W. Bush four years earlier."

Mr. Fund, how do we know this to be true? What I mean is the raw numbers/percentages.

How do we know that John Kerry got 57% of a certain segment of the population and the current president got 67% of that same segment?

One, some people are 'undefined.' They might be a mixture of backgrounds. How do you "count" them?

More importantly, HOW DO WE KNOW?

I've voted every chance I could in my adult life. And I've worked several times at polling stations spending long hours on vote days observing all that occurs (the good, the bad, the ugly, and, yes the vote fraud to go along with apathetic, unskilled, vote station workers).

I've never witnessed someone putting down a tally mark for how this woman, that man, or that American Indian voted. Never.

Now, this is a big country filled with countless vote precincts. Maybe this demographic tallying is going on with abandon elsewhere? (But you state -- as if concrete fact -- these percentages as from the WHOLE, as in ALL VOTERS in Novembers 2004 and 2008)

How do we know?

The truth is (a) we don't know at all and this is pure conjecture, or (b) our rights as citizens are trampled in the voting booth.

You see it is supposed to be, once a person has been IDed as in the city/town/county/precinct voter registration book as "current/valid" just Citizen X or Y stepping up to a presently empty voting booth.

The mostly electronic voting booths today aren't supposed to have any clue as to what person's finger is making the selections(s) on election days.

It is just the finger of a person who has been checked as legit.

Our votes are supposed to be totally anonymous.

And nobody goes outside to spend 2, 5, 10, or 15 minutes telling every Tom, Dick, and Harry pollster for whom or how they voted. One nobody has time for that kind of nonsense. Two, Tom, Dick, Harry, and Sally pollsters aren't anywhere to be seen at MOST polling stations.

So back to the question, Mr. Fund.

How do you know (as an empirical fact) 57% for Kerry in 2004 and 67% for Obama in 2008?

Folks - this is important. We're told this stuff all the time. We're given this data as fact. But HOW can anyone know these factual statistics?

Frankly, we shouldn't know or be able to know.

DList| 2.18.12 @ 11:02AM

Here is what is completely missing in this article. What does he think Republicans need to do to get the Hispanic vote???

Steve| 2.18.12 @ 11:30AM

DList-I don't know. McCain sponsored a bill to give amnesty to illegals and got a whopping 32% in 2008. Personally,I would just got George Wallace and concentrate on the white white.

Edgar Vale| 2.18.12 @ 12:33PM

This article has a couple of mistakes. The first one is that people born in Puerto Rico since 1917 are US citizen due to the Jones Act. Second in 1944 it is ratified that people born in Puerto Rico are natural born citizen. Third Puerto Rico has being a US territory since 1898. For those of you that don't know your own history it is a shame. The US is not only 50 states it consist of 50 States and territories like Puerto Rico,Guam, USVI, American Samoa, US Minor Outlaying Island anf the Northen Mariana Islands.

TommyFrisco| 2.18.12 @ 6:30PM

Edgar,
Can you provide a link showing that Puerto Ricans have been considered "natural born citizens" since 1944? If that's truly the case, why aren't they eligible to vote in our Presidential elections? There does seem to be a distinction between Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico and those from Puerto Rico living here in the States.

albert constantine jr.| 2.18.12 @ 10:50PM

I am not trying to be argumentative, but as a point of clarification, am I incorrect that a person born in Puerto Rice (say in 1970) moves to New Jersey (or any other state), is not a convicted felon serving a sentence or otherwise ineligible who properly registers to vote, that their vote for POTUS counts?

Tommy Frisco| 2.20.12 @ 11:54AM

Albert,
According to my research, Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico are not allowed to vote in our Federal elections. Puerto Ricans living in one of our States, can vote in our Federal elections. In Puerto Rico, they do not pay Federal income tax unless they work for the Federal government. In the states, they have the same requirements as other U.S. citizens for paying into the federal income system.

In other words, unlike U.S. citizens here in the States, Puerto Ricans must have some 'skin in the game' before they are allowed to vote in our Federal elections.

Purple Lips| 2.18.12 @ 1:32PM

Si, si - Free burritos for everyone!! We must reach out the Hispanics because our Balkanized culture demands it. But, what about the growing Somali minority in Minnisota? Free goats for Somalis!!! Yes, that's the ticket. And what about the growing Russian minority in New Jersey and New York? Why we can offer free vodka and prostitutes!!

"Reaching Out" is politico-lingo for surrender. Our pols and our political culture have only two skills - pandering and income redistribution (of course, they get a cut of the public pie. All for one and lots for oneself!).

The GOP once stood for a grizzled, hardcore set of beliefs that at the very least kept the public fingers out of the federal cookie jar. Now we've joined the masses in masquerading theft as a public virtue.

jstwndring| 2.19.12 @ 12:49AM

I'm sorry, but, what in the damn hell are we talking about here? Selecting a Hispanic candidate to court a group that apparently isn't intelligent enough overall to recognize a party platform that promotes individual liberty and freedom from a heavy-handed, centralized, command and control-type of government? If they can't figure that out, I don't want their fricken vote. We shouldn't stoop to pandering to racial groups in an act of desperation. We should continue to promote the ideals of liberty and freedom from government overreach and tyranny. Leave racial politics to the hypocrites on the left. You know, the ones who are supposedly "color blind". If Hispanics want to embrace the limited government ideal, fine, join the party. If not, stay with the party of Karl Marx. How about we just start electing qualified candidates instead of worrying about what color they are? Novel idea, huh?

Claymore| 2.19.12 @ 8:26AM

jstwndring, yes, you are correct. I was trying in my comment above -- not very well -- to make the same point above.

Whether we are talking about candidates or about who will make up the votes/vote block that will propel decent candidates to wins, what matters is core values.

It is daffy to try to win favor with this group or that group. That's chameleon politics.

The core citizenry of this nation have shared core values that make America great. Only they can offer up to us civic leaders. Only they, en masse at the voting stations, can give us better/best possible candidates.

None of that has anything to do with ancestry or skin pigmentation.

jstwndring| 2.19.12 @ 6:29PM

Yes, actually, I hadn't read your comment, or, anyone else's this time before posting. I was so annoyed with the article, I just had to vent. Anyway, I agree with the points you made previously--especially with regard to kaleidoscope eyes.....can't trust those types. No, your point was well made, and if I had bothered to read it, I probably wouldn't have posted.

Although, now having re-read my post, it seems I was being a bit harsh to Hispanics. Sorry. The point I was trying to make was that for those who rightfully distrust an ever-intrusive federal government, the only logical choice, at least with regard to party platform (if not in practical application) is the Republican Party. And, of course, hopefully we can clean the party up of those that insist on pulling us leftward. We'll see.

Jim Hlavac| 2.19.12 @ 11:05AM

What's with the tilde squiggle in his name? He's American, no? The language is English, no? Especially for a vice-president, yes? There's no tilde in English, I'm pretty certain. I don't have one on my keyboard to type this with, that's for sure. If he wants to keep the Spanish pronunciation, throw in a "y" after the N. Fortunyo. English did it with "canon" with tilde, it became "canyon." Or if we are to go for the little marks over foreign letters, let's go all the way, and do it for every language that has them; perhaps that will get every ethnic group to be happy. Hlaváč. There, tilde for hacek. And I won't know if it takes to your page until I post it, let's hope it does, to be equal and fair in the dispensing of little marks over letters to preserve our ethnicity, and hold off on the E Pluribus Unum English thingy.

Abomination| 2.19.12 @ 4:07PM

While we are at it we can sanction sexually deviant perverted degenerate behavior that the Creator Who created all men equally and endowed them with unalienable rights has made clear is detetestable behavior too.

Dick Nome| 2.19.12 @ 1:57PM

Puerto Rico should be independent and sever it's ties as an American territory. It has it's own national flag, language, culture and pretty much it's own economy. It has it's own Olympic team. All that plus the advantage of being US citizens with all that goes with it. Many of them want independence. OK, so give it to them.

Tommy Frisco| 2.20.12 @ 9:47AM

The majority of the four million Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico do not want independence. Why would they? They do not pay Federal income taxes, yet Puerto Rico recieved 21.4 billion in Federal aid and benefits in 2009. That number is expected to increase to 35-40 billion over the next 20 years. That imbalance, per capita, is far higher than in any of our fifty states.

If our politicians in DC weren't pandering for the Puerto Rican (living in the states), they would be demanding that Puerto Ricans pay into the Federal income tax system like the rest of us do or we will make them independent whether they want to or not.

Raoul Lowery Contreras| 2.21.12 @ 6:57PM

John McCain received 31-32% of the Hispanic vote (determined by exit polling), That doesn't look good except that every Republican that has won the Presidency since 1968 (when Hispanic votes were first quantified by exit polls) that received 35% or more of the Hispanic vote has won his election.

FeFe| 2.22.12 @ 3:02PM

He has endorsed Mitt Romney. Next.

Could the RNC please stop trying to be Pied Piper's gathering all the (minority) sheep, and instead no longer be shy about "Reagan's conservative principles" emptying the nest with individual sovereignty, "freeing the American people to be free and industrious"? Be worthy of those who gave their last full measure of devotion for America and cut off the teat. Try this for a fiscal "profile in courage": Call me when the Latin peoples respect America enough to not want her bankruptcy long enough to put down the begging bowl of foreign aid, stolen SS#s, welfare state bread and circuses, La Raza studies, drug exports, open borders, etc. And when the brown people start to call for "paying their fair share" with a tax on remittances, then they just might begin to give a fig about America and "believe in many core conservative principles" over the Marxist hell holes they subsidize.

Who will say "Hispanics" "must do a better job reaching out to" assimilate in America or must the "right message" always be that Republicans are getting "a second chance" to embrace the invasion? "But whatever his future holds," the best "medicine" the RNC or America can offer is a Christian spiritual journey to stop the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.

MJ| 3.24.12 @ 5:42PM

Give it up Fortuno....
Don't spend any more time lobbying for this.
From : Somewhere in Puerto Rico

William A Velez| 3.24.12 @ 9:55PM

Hi from Puerto Rico! Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917, not 1952. The Jones Act of 1917 gave American citizenship to Puerto Ricans. In 1952, Puerto Rico vote to establish a relationship of incorporated territory to the United States, which did not award any additional power to those who had prior to that