Posted on 04/12/2010 6:13:47 AM PDT by cll
Newsmax’s recent cruise through the Caribbean was not only an adventure but also a learning experience.
One of the highlights of our trip was our stop in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and our visit with the Republican governor of the territory, Luis Fortuno.
Dick Morris and I, as well as a group of our hosts, left our cruise ship docked in Old San Juan to visit Fortuno at the nearby La Fortaleza mansion, from which he governs the tropical island.
Fortuno is a fascinating man whom we found to be not only charismatic but also a person who abides in deep core values.
The University of Virginia Law School graduate and former member of the U.S. House has a clear vision for what he wants to do for Puerto Rico and how America should be. This vision is refreshingly conservative.
Fortuno won election as governor in 2008 by 11 percentage points, becoming the first Republican governor of Puerto Rico since 1969.
Interestingly, Puerto Rico saw a GOP wave, with the governorship and the Legislature won by Republicans in the same year Obama and the Democrats swept to power.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Fortuño’s support of Obamacare was one thing Ruddy didn’t to his homework on.
Fortuno is not even a Republican. He is from the New Progressive Party. The Popular Democratic Party caucused with the Democrats, so they became labelled as “Democrats,” and the NPP was their opposition, so they labelled as “Republicans.” But their name should tell anyone that they aren’t Republicans.
Fortuño is officially affiliated with the Republicans. The Resident Commissioner to Congress, who is also a NPP’er, is affiliated with the Democrats.
“Fortuno is not even a Republican. He is from the New Progressive Party. The Popular Democratic Party caucused with the Democrats, so they became labelled as “Democrats,” and the NPP was their opposition, so they labelled as “Republicans.”
While it is true that candidates in PR run under the banner of the local parties, which are divided among the pro-statehood, pro-”Commonwealth” and pro-independence groups (the latter of which has gotten below 3% in the past two elections and for the second time in a row will need to gather signatures in order to get back on the ballot), Gov. Luis Fortuño is indeed a life-long Republican as well as a life-long member of the New Progressive Party. For years has been the GOP National Committeeman in Puerto Rico, and as a young lawyer he was a member of the Platform Committee at the 1996 Republican National Convention (which committee brushed aside Bob Dole’s attempts to strip pro-life language from the platform in the name of “unity”). Fortuño was PR’s Resident Commissioner (non-voting member of the U.S. House of Representatives) from 2005 to 2009, and was a member of the Republican caucus.
The pro-”Commonwealth” Popular Democratic Party does not “caucus” with national Democrats, although there are historical ties between the PDP and the Democrats going back to the FDR Administration. Almost all PDP politicians that declare an allegiance to a national party are Democrats, but since voters in PR don’t get to choose from between Democrats and Republicans in elections (with the sole exception of presidential primaries) more than half of PDP politicians have never said whether they are Republicans or Democrats.
The statehood movement in PR has traditionally been aligned with the Republican Party, and, in fact, the main pro-statehood party during most of the period between 1900 and 1968 was called the Republican Statehood Party. A large majority of members of the NPP that have declared allegiance to a national party (something that members of the NPP are much more likely to do than in the PDP) are Republicans, although pro-statehood Democrats include two former NPP Governors (Carlos Romero-Barceló and Pedro Rosselló) in their ranks. Currently, Republicans comprise a majority in both the House and Senate in Puerto Rico, and both Senate President Thomas Rivera-Schatz and House Speaker Jenniffer (that’s what her parents spelled her name) González are Republicans, as are the mayors of the 100,000+ population cities of San Juan, Bayamon, Ponce, Guaynabo, Arecibo and Toa Baja.
The pro-statehood New Progressive Party did not get its name because it espouses liberal policies, or even as an homage to the “progressive movement” of LaFollette and others. The party was organized in early 1968 in the aftermath of a political-status plebiscite that the Statehood Republican Party boycotted because of the unfairness of the process but that statehood leader Luis A. Ferré (who attended every Republican National Convention from the 1930s until his death at the age of 99 a few years ago) formed a group to defend statehood, and Ferré chose the name New Progressive Party for the new party because (i) he knew that PR needed support from both Republicans and Democrats in order to become the 51st state, so it wasn’t a good idea to have “Republican” in the name and (ii) the PDP had long claimed the mantle of economic progress through government programs, and Ferré (who was an industrialist and one of the richest men in PR at the time) was promising economic progress through a robust private sector and closer union with the U.S. BTW, Ferré won the governorship in a huge upset later in 1968 (helped by the fact that the PDP governor was not renominated but ran under a new party label and got 20% or so while over 95% of statehooders voted for Ferré), and served as governor until 1973 (he lost reelection in 1972), meaning that the article was wrong about the date of the most recent GOP governor in PR prior to Fortuño.
Of course, as we have learned from the history of every other part of the U.S., just because someone is a Republican doesn;t mean that he is a rock-ribbed conservative. Fortuño is pro-life and pro-marriage (as are most members of both the NPP and the PDP in PR), and is generally pro-business and anti-labor union, but he embraced the Stimulus Bill and ObamaCare because it would increase federal dollars going to PR (and since most PR residents aren’t subject to federal income taxes you won’t see any big local tax revolts for his support of those federal giveaways).
Thanks for the ping.
Fortuño is a conservative in a Puerto Rican context, but his support for health care means he is not ready for prime time as a mainland conservative politician.
Still, he strikes me as a good man, with a lot of grit.
*Yawn*
I tell you what: I grew up in a largely Puerto Rican neighborhood, and I never met a Republican Puerto Rican until I moved to D.C. The statehood issue is a disgrace. PR keeps voting, “NO! HELL NO!” on the issue. The last ballot question didn’t even give Commonwealth status as an option.
Actually, the 1998 political-status plebiscite was the first time that the current “Commonwealth status” (and not some pipe-dream that has nothing to do with what the U.S. Constitution says about congressional authority over territories) was presented as an option. The current status got less than 1%, and just about everyone that was either opposed to statehood or wanted to hurt politically the pro-statehood governor voted “None of the Above” (which got 50.1%). But I’m sure you knew that already, given that you grew up in a neighborhood with a lot of people of Puerto Rican descent.
For the record, while everyone knows that Puerto Ricans in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Illinois vote heavily Democrat, they are for the most part descended from the poor, uneducated, rural Puerto Ricans that moved to the cold, urban North during the Great Depression. Puerto Ricans that moved to Central Florida during the past 25 years have been mostly lower-middle class and middle class and are classic swing voters, voting for Al Gore and Bill Nelson in 2000, Jeb Bush in 2002, George W. Bush and Mel Martinez in 2004, and for the Democrats in 2006 and 2008; you can bet that they will vote for Bill McCollum and Marco Rubio in 2010.
“(and not some pipe-dream that has nothing to do with what the U.S. Constitution says about congressional authority over territories) “
Spin away. Commonwealth status got 60+% in 1967. I’m sure the other 4 territories were fascinated by the declaration that their statuses were also illegal. I’m sure you’d love giving the Demonrats TEN more senators.
“(and not some pipe-dream that has nothing to do with what the U.S. Constitution says about congressional authority over territories) “
Spin away. Commonwealth status got 60+% in 1967. I’m sure the other 4 territories were fascinated by the declaration that their statuses were also illegal. I’m sure you’d love giving the Demonrats TEN more senators.
>> For the record, while everyone knows that Puerto Ricans in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Illinois vote heavily Democrat, they are for the most part descended from the poor, uneducated, rural Puerto Ricans that moved to the cold, urban North during the Great Depression. <<
Uh, no. Mostly, they came during the 60s, or still resided in PR part of the time.
“(and not some pipe-dream that has nothing to do with what the U.S. Constitution says about congressional authority over territories) “
Spin away. Commonwealth status got 60+% in 1967. I’m sure the other 4 territories were fascinated by the declaration that their statuses were also illegal. I’m sure you’d love giving the Demonrats TEN more senators.
>> For the record, while everyone knows that Puerto Ricans in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Illinois vote heavily Democrat, they are for the most part descended from the poor, uneducated, rural Puerto Ricans that moved to the cold, urban North during the Great Depression. <<
Uh, no. Mostly, they came during the 60s, or still resided in PR part of the time.
“(and not some pipe-dream that has nothing to do with what the U.S. Constitution says about congressional authority over territories) “
Spin away. Commonwealth status got 60+% in 1967. I’m sure the other 4 territories were fascinated by the declaration that their statuses were also illegal. I’m sure you’d love giving the Demonrats TEN more senators.
>> For the record, while everyone knows that Puerto Ricans in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Illinois vote heavily Democrat, they are for the most part descended from the poor, uneducated, rural Puerto Ricans that moved to the cold, urban North during the Great Depression. <<
Uh, no. Mostly, they came during the 60s, or still resided in PR part of the time.
The definition of Puerto Rico’s current political status that was used in the 1998 plebiscite was based on the definition approved by the U.S. House of Representatives earlier that year (when the GOP had a majority) and on U.S. Supreme Court precedent; prior plebiscites had a fantastic definition for “Commonwealth” that was written by the PDP and that would never be acceptable to the U.S. Congress or federal courts.
Do you think that the per curiam opinion in U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Harris v. Rosario (1980), which had only had one dissenting Justice (Thurgood Marshall), and says that Congress has plenary powers with respect to legislation over U.S. territories pursuant to Article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution and can discriminate against residents of territories in spending bills so long as there is a reasonable basis for it, is incorrect? What a curious thing for a self-described conservative to believe!
So, you think that one Congress can bind another, and that there are unrepealable laws? Because that’s what the PDP claims, that Congress can no longer legislate over PR pursuant to its constitutinal authority because Act 600 approved by Congress in 1950 said that they wouldn’t legislate over certain areas. Or do you believe that Congress must treat residents of PR the same as those of states even though residents of states pay federal income taxes? Or that Congress is constitutionally forbidden from imposing taxes on PR? I don’t believe that you think any of those things, or even know what the definition of “Commonwealth” was in any status plebiscite in PR. You just like to spout off about things that you know nothing about, without realizing that what you are saying would sound good to a Barack Obama but would be recognized as ridiculous by Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito.
And then you accuse me of saying that PR’s current political status is illegal, when all I (and the U.S. Supreme Court) am saying is that when the PDP says that “Commonwealth” guarantees huge federal subsidies with no federal interference, forever and ever, that such view violates the U.S. Constitution. Why would you defend a ridiculous view that is so ultraliberal that it would make Nancy Pelosi blush?
But you are willing to take sub-moronic positions on congressional power over territories because you think that it will keep PR from electing 2 liberal Democrat Senators and 6 liberal Democrat Representatives to Congress. Do you would realize that Massachusetts is far, far more liberal and Democrat than PR could ever be? I mean, Massachusetts has gay marriage, and like 90% of each house of its state legislature is Democrat. Puerto Rico, with Republican majorities in each house of the legislature, a Republican governor, Republican mayors in most major cities (including San Juan Mayor Jorge Santini, the only big-city U.S. mayor to support the repeal of the Assault-Weapon Ban), and a socially conservative electorate that behaves more like that of Louisiana than any other state, is far more deserving of U.S, statehood than Massachusetts is.
But I’m not desecrating the U.S. Constitution to allow Congress to kick Massachusetts out of the Union. Why are you willing to throw away one of the most basic principles of our democratic republic—that one Congress cannot bind another—simply to give legitimacy to a pro “Commonwealth” political party that wants all of the economic benefits of U.S. statehood with none of the responsibilities?
Wow, what a strawman: all that huffing and puffing. Sorry, but the following is a ridiculous basis for an argument: “You don’t hold this view, so you must hold this view, and if you hold that view, you must hold this view....”I’m not a PDP fan, either. Duh, they’re the Democrats. But I sure as hell don’t want a non-English-speaking welfare dependency to become a state when THEY don’t even want to.
You think they’ll be LESS of a welfare state when they become a state? Or do you really hope that the plebescite’s authors were hoping they’d choose “commonwealth?” Hey, Congress can cut back on PR funding any time they want to.
If you acknowledge that Congress can cut back on (or eliminate) funding for PR any time it wants to, why do you repeat the PDP spin that the 1998 plebiscite did not give “Commonwealth” as an option and earlier plebiscites did? The 1998 plebiscite is the only one that described the status quo as you and I and the Supreme Court recognize it, yet you state that pro-statehood forces tried to rig the plebiscite by presenting the truth regarding the “Commonwealth” option.
If voters in Massachusetts were told that they could vote for a political status that would guarantee them current levels of federal funding (in block grants in the case of transfer payments to the state), with the state being able to opt of federal legislation that it doesn’t like and with no federal personal income taxes being levied, I think that U.S. statehood would have a tough time getting to 50%, too.
>> If voters in Massachusetts were told that they could vote for a political status that would guarantee them current levels of federal funding (in block grants in the case of transfer payments to the state), with the state being able to opt of federal legislation that it doesn’t like and with no federal personal income taxes being levied, I think that U.S. statehood would have a tough time getting to 50%, too. <<
On that point, I absolutely agree... Let’s kick Massachusetts out, too. =^) My point, though, is that it’s ridiculous to offer “statehood or else”; The current status includes the possibility of reduced federal assistance.
“My point, though, is that it’s ridiculous to offer “statehood or else”; The current status includes the possibility of reduced federal assistance.”
Under PR’s current political status, Congress certainly has the right to reduce federal funds sent to the Island or to levey federal income taxes on residents of PR. Congress also has the right to tell PR to “fish or cut bait” (I prefer another colloquialism involving a pot, but the fishing one is more family-friendly), saying that if the U.S. citizens in PR want to continue to enjoy many of the benefits of statehood they need to undertake the responsibilities that come with statehood.
Thus, there is nothing nefarious about a congressionally sponsored political-status plebiscite in PR that defines “Commonwealth” and asks voters whether they want ot keep such status or opt for a new status, and if a majority no longer consents to the status quo then asking whether they want statehood (with all of its rights and responsibilities) or sovereignty (which would place PR outside of the purview of Congress and would result in future generations not being U.S. citizens).
That being said, the current blebiscite bill before Congress has a fatal flaw that makes it not only unfair, but unconstitutional: it permits any person born in PR to vote even if they no longer reside in PR. Thus, a person born in PR who left at the age of 1 and has lived in North Dakota for the past 75 years can vote in the plebiscite, even though he already gets to vote for a Representative and two Senators that will eventually get to decide whether to grant a request from PR for statehood or independence. Worse still, if you have next-door neighbors in Orlando, one of whom was born in PR and left at the age of 1 and the other was born in NYC but lived in PR from the ages of 1 to 55, the one born in PR would get to vote in the plebiscite solely because of his place of birth. Voting qualifications may be granted based on citizenship or residency, but never based on origin, as the State of Hawaii found out when the elections it held in which only descendants of pre-1893 residents of Hawaii could vote were declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. But if the bill was amended to get that ridiculous clause struck out, it would be a good start to a process in which U.S. citizens residing in PR get to decide whether they wish to fish or cut bait.
The PR of the 21st century is a long ways from that of the pre-bootstrap era, when DC subsidized economic development within the context of cold war/Latin American politics, while causing much of the underclass to emigrate to the mainland. Nevertheless, the high crime rate, unemployment, low levels of education, to say nothing of seemingly congenital corruption among the political class are a tall order for any governor to take on. While per capita income is high by Caribbean standards, so is the cost of basic goods, and most of the island is quite poor by mainland standards (which is why use of the WIC card/food stamps is considerably higher in PR than anywhere in the US). I wish Luis the best of luck, but PR has its own unique culture (political and otherwise) that will take along time to change.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.