Skip to comments.GOP strategists: Puerto Rico Gov. Fortuno is a sleeper vice presidential pick
Posted on 04/14/2012 3:24:23 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Puerto Rico Gov. Luis Fortuno (R) is a sleeper pick for the No. 2 spot on the 2012 presidential ticket, according to GOP strategists.
Republican front-runner Mitt Romney has kept his cards close to his chest on vice presidential prospects, saying that it would be presumptuous to think about it before winning the nomination. But in a recent interview with Newsmax, he described Fortuno as a solid conservative and a firm leader. He also dubbed Fortuno one of the great leaders of our party.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Oh, for sure, an explosion! Cheney is just no “metro male”. Romney could use at least one man on his ticket.
Newt, as you know, is my guy. He can be an SOB, and that fits my mood... and the times.
“Newt, as you know, is my guy. He can be an SOB, and that fits my mood... and the times.”
He’s mine too. But the math just isn’t there for him...
“Romney could use at least one man on his ticket.”
Big AMEN to that!!!
I still say I should get to be "latino" because my grandmother's family was Sicily. :-p The government's racial classifications make no sense.... full blooded Caucasian guy who immigrated to America from the Iberian Peninsula in Europe = "non-white minority". dark skinned Arab guy from a northern African country like Libya = "white". Whatever.
In any case, I agree a mexican-american on the ticket would probably sway alot more hispanic voters than a cuban or puetro rican (seriously, I don't think Mexicans care about a puetro rican on the ticket anymore than Irish-americans are likely to vote for an Italian on the ticket because he's a "fellow Catholic"). However, there's just not alot of good conservative mexican-americans in office that we could put on the ticket.
Since Romney's a former Governor, I think he's far more likely to pick an conservative Senator or Congressman with an anti-Obama record as his running mate, than pick another Governor. Thus Rubio and Cantor are probably being looked at more closely than Martinez or Fortuno (Martinez would be have been preferable if the GOP nominee was Santorum or Gingrich though). Despite being pro-life and cutting government, Fortuno has been cozy with Obama's policies and sucked up to him, making him a terrible choice for running mate. He's on my "unacceptable" list with other names like John Thune, Peter King, Condoleezza Rice, and so on.
I don't see any problem with a Mormon-Catholic ticket and I'm really tired of hearing the media line about "evangelicals" being upset "because they don't consider Mormons to Christians". First off, I hate to break the news to the mainstream media and freeperdom, but Catholics, Orthodox, and "mainline" protestants don't consider Mormons to be Christian, either. Secondly, I don't care whether we have a "Christian" candidate for President as I would sooner vote for a conservative constitutional Hindu before I would vote for a socialist "Christian" who tells everyone he's accepted Jesus Christ as his savior and been born again (can you say Jimmy Carter?). As I've said 1000 times before, Romney's problem is his liberalism, not his religion. The "Mormon" card is just being played the media to make excuses of "right-wing bigotry" if Romney loses, and avoid the fact he's a RINO that the GOP base can't get excited about.
But in any case, I don't think "Evangelicals" will vote for Obama, or even "stay home" in states where they play a big factor. I can't imagine the media reporting "this just in... in a huge upset, it appears Alabama will go to President Obama this evening, as evangelical voters stayed home in massive numbers". In the swing states we NEED to win... Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennslyvania, etc., the "evangelicals" are a non-factor.
Evangelicals are by no means a non-factor in OH—why do you think that Romney almost lost to Santorum there despite all of his money and endorsements? And increased Evangelical turnout was one of the main reason why President Bush was able to hold off Kerry in OH in 2004.
Having a Puerto Rican or Cuban-American VP nominee might help the GOP attract some extra Mexican-American voters, provided that such candidate spoke Spanish. But it probably wouldn’t have *that* much of an effect, and if the GOP ticket doesn’t carry OH it will take a huge swing in the Mexican-American vote in NM, NV and CO to get the GOP to 270 EVs.
Picking a governor of PR sounds too much like a gimmick, imo.
Since Romney's a former Governor, I think he's far more likely to pick an conservative Senator or Congressman with an anti-Obama record as his running mate, than pick another Governor. Thus Rubio and Cantor are probably being looked at more closely than Martinez or Fortuno (Martinez would be have been preferable if the GOP nominee was Santorum or Gingrich though). Despite being pro-life and cutting government, Fortuno has been cozy with Obama's policies and sucked up to him, making him a terrible choice for running mate. He's on my "unacceptable" list with other names like John Thune, Peter King, Condoleezza Rice, and so on.Thanks BillyBoy.
“Hispanic” is not a “race” it’s a catch-all ethnicity of every Spanish speaking group. People who are called Hispanic have to pick a “race” on the US census form to go along with Hispanic status. I guess most of those that are mixed White and Indian check White. Apparently some are Hispanic Asians, I guess that means Filipinos?
It’s confusing ethnicity and race. Which is probably the government’s fault.
I wouldn’t dub Portuguese as “Hispanic” because Portuguese is not Spanish. Portuguese-American politicians though love to say they are to woo voters. 3 Cali Congressman in the Central Valley. My uncle’s ex-wife was part Brazilian, next time I see my cousins I’ll ask them if they consider that Hispanic or “Latino”. They probably consider it “Brazilian” just like they consider their Norwegian ancestry “Norwegian “, just like most Hispanic people consider themselves “Mexican” or “Cuban” or what have you.
And Arabs, Turks, and Iranians they don’t have a separate category for, they don’t consider it “Asian” (Indians from India along with East Asians who look very different) but White. Some Arabs have dark skin, some not. Turks look a lot like Greeks.
Some British people call dark skinned Pakistanis and Indians “Black”.
It’s all stupid and confusing.
As for Mormons and Christianity, I’m no theologian and I couldn’t care less but I’d say they are, they have Jesus in their official title after all. In either case we’ve had Unitarian Presidents, if Mormon isn’t Christian then Unitarian probably isn’t either, right?
Re: Hispanic Asians, I forgot all about Alberto Fujimori!
I don’t think many Filipinos consider themselves Hispanic, but who knows? There are honest-to-goodness Latin-Anericans of Chinese or Japanese descent, though, particularly in Peru (where Alberto Fujimorinbecame president).
If you’re an Argentine whose four grandparents were Italian, Croatian, Ukranian and German, you’re “Hispanic.” Not only is Hispanic not a racial category, it is barely an ethnic category.
It seems to me that the census bureau may have been the ones to invent it the term (in the way that we are using it) in the first place.
My former considered herself Hispanic in addition to being Filipina (but also Caucasian, Native American, Eastern European, Scottish, Chinese... et al). She was hired at the local Sears because they thought she was (exclusively) Hispanic and would be serving the same-race clientele (or specifically Mexican & Central Americans, many illegal, of which she wasn’t).
Yeah, Brazilians are always being classified as "Hispanic" despite the fact they speak Portuguese. I agree the government terminology is pretty much:
Hispanic = from a spanish-speaking culture
Latino = From a latin-based culture, except those white people of Italian ancestry don't count. But if your ancestry is 100% European Spaniard, congratulates, you're a minority!
Idiotic government policies in action. The ironic thing is "Hispanics" weren't considered a "minority" until there were lots of them in the United States. Back when Texas entered the union and "Hispanics" became Americans, they'd simply assimilate into the anglo culture. 100 years ago, if you were born here and your name was "Jose Gonzales" and your ancestry was Cuban, you'd just be classified as a white citizen and granted all the civil rights that "John Smith" and his ancestors from England had, unless you "looked" non-white. If anything, people with Spanish ancestry were more likely to face discrimination from being Catholic than having the name "Gonzales". Also, according to our government, to be "Hispanic" you don't actually have to have any background in Spanish culture yourself, just ancestry from a spanish country. Hence, Cameron Diaz is somehow "Hispanic" because her grandfather came from Cuba. Yet Rob Schneider is NOT "asian" (or latino), when his grandmother was a Filipina who married his grandfather when he was stationed in the Philippines.
Don't ask me to explain the double standards. Apparently I'd be "latino" if only my great grandfather Augusto came from Spain instead of Italy. The people who invented latin don't "count" as latinos, for some reason known only to the U.S. government. ;-)
>> And Arabs, Turks, and Iranians they dont have a separate category for, they dont consider it Asian (Indians from India along with East Asians who look very different) but White. Some Arabs have dark skin, some not. Turks look a lot like Greeks. <<
The census forms had all "hispanic" people select their race in a separate category, and although they're allowed to check multiple boxes ("White" and "Ameican Indian" if you have mixed ancestry), most of them checked "Other" and tried to list their "race" as whatever their national origin was ("Mexican")
According to the government, people from the Middle East and northern Africa are all classified as "white", regardless of skin color. (this often annoys Arabs, who do not consider themselves white and don't want to be classified as such) People from the Mediterranean area (Greeks, etc.) are also "white". People from the Indian subcontinent are "asian" (specifically, "east asian", which is what refer to people from India and Pakistan as in England), although when I hear the word "asian" I think Oriental.
>> In either case weve had Unitarian Presidents, if Mormon isnt Christian then Unitarian probably isnt either, right? <<
A point simply ignored by the "conservatives" ranting and raving that America is DOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED if a "non-Christian" is elected. I'd pay real money to send the "Republic, not a Democracy" people and the "I'll never vote for a non-Christian" people back in time 100 years to the election of 1912. The choices were:
1) Woodrow Wilson, a "progressive" Democrat and Presbyterian Christian who is the son of a minister, Rev. Joseph Wilson.
2) Theodore Roosevelt, a "progressive" Republican-turned-third party candidate, a Dutch Reformed Christian.
3) William Howard Taft, conservative Republican, a Unitarian who occasionally attends church at Cincinnati's First Congregational-Unitarian Church, and is President of the National League of Unitarian Laymen. While he admires the life of Jesus personally, he flat out states "I do not believe in the divinity of Christ."
Can't imagine how they'd vote. "Sin" by voting for the conservative Republican? Cast a token protest vote for the Christian conservative polling 1% as the Prohibitionist Party's nominee, and throw the election to Wilson? (whom they claimed "destroyed our Republic"). Vote for one of the progressives because he says Jesus is his savior?
And the ironic thing, freepers who can't stand Santorum keep calling ME an "evangelical" and "religious right" candidate because I favor social conservatives. Ha!
Well, Taft destroyed devout Christian and socialist WJ Bryan in 1908. Maybe people were more savvy back then. ;d