Rather than spending time discussing why Fiorina is wrong, I encourage the readers of this site to go to Fund's appearances and ask him about this paragraph:
An issue that will give (Chuck DeVore) some traction in a primary is that Ms. Fiorina says she "probably" would have voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor, because most presidential Supreme Court nominees who are qualified deserve a presumption of support. One can argue with that position on substantive grounds, but it's probably smart politics in a general election given that California is 37% Hispanic.
The great majority of Hispanics in California are Mexican-American (or Mexican). Puerto Ricans make up only about 10% of U.S. Hispanics, and their percentage is probably higher in New York City than in California. And, while the two groups are Hispanic in the broad sense, the two groups aren't known for being close friends. For an example right from the WSJ's hometown, see September 6, 2003's "Little but Language in Common; Mexicans and Puerto Ricans Quarrel in East Harlem" from the New York Times (link).
Why is Fund assuming that Mexican-Americans would reflexively fall behind a Puerto Rican candidate? In fact, some Mexican-American leaders grumbled about a non-Mexican-American Hispanic being selected and Hispanics were generally in line with everyone else about the nomination. Why is Fund in effect supporting pan-Hispanic nationalism, just as Bill Richardson, Bob Menendez, and the National Council of La Raza do? Wouldn't it be better for the U.S. to oppose pan-ethnic nationalism and thereby take power away from Richardson, Menendez, the NCLR, and all the other far-left racial power advocates and organizations? And, why is Fund suggesting capitulation over the choice of someone who was a member of the NCLR, a board member of the equally far-left PRLDEF, and who showed herself to be highly ethno-centric?
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 14:13 · Importance: 4