Where were the evangelicals in So. Carolina when Santorum needed them?

Who knows?

Former senator Rick Santorum of Penn. finally won the Iowa caucuses over Mitt Romney with 34 votes when the folks in Iowa did their final count.  Sounds reasonable to me considering the high evangelical population in the state but also appears much too close when you consider Romney is a Mormon.  Like JFK’s Catholicism in the November 1960 election for President, Romney’s Mormonism has been a barrier for the religious right from the beginning.

Apparently there were missing votes in eight Iowa precincts that for some reason or other were never received and counted, blamed on the “state’s old-fashioned primary process.”  The missing votes were spread across five Iowa counties and in 2008 that area accounted for a total of 298 votes.  In one such precinct GOP chair, Karen Zander, said about the volunteers, “They had no training.  They didn’t know what they were doing.”

Pretty pathetic for an election that screams to the rest of the country each year that they are the first, and one of the most important votes in the primaries leading up to the primary nomination.  I have never understood the importance of these caucuses, and maybe the rest of the country and future presidential candidates will come to agree after this year.  But Romney’s close second does speak well of evangelical voters in that they were apparently able to put religion aside and vote with reason.



Did the same situation occur in South Carolina?  In the 2008 Republican primary there, 60 percent of the Republican voters defined themselves as “born-again-Christians,” compared with a national average of 44 percent.  Another 69 percent said that the candidate’s religious beliefs mattered in their vote.  In 2012 B-A-Cs jumped to 65 percent.  Also in 2012, religious beliefs of the candidates differed in that 59 percent said they mattered a great deal or somewhat, followed by 19 percent who said not much, 21 percent not at all.

In 2012, 97 percent were worried about the economy in South Carolina; 63 percent thought it was the most important issue compared to 8 percent for abortion.  However, 64 percent did think abortion should be illegal.  Winner Newt Gingrich was helped by the fact that 64 percent of So. Carolinians support the Tea Party and he was apparently able to garner their vote according to exit polls.  But it still isn’t clear if Gingrich can win TPers in less conservative states.

You can see the entire So. Carolina CNN Election Poll results here.

This is all somewhat perplexing since a meeting of the Christian conservative leaders in January of this year in Texas voted to back Rick Santorum, reported Family Research Council president Tony Perkins.  Some of those involved were Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, Perkins, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference president Rev. Samuel Rodriguez and former presidential candidate Gary Bauer.  Members of the media were not allowed at the meeting. 

Newt Gingrich

Although the Christian conservative majority vote was for Santorum, individuals voted for other candidates, such as American Family Assn. founder Don Wildmon who voted for Gingrich.  For those of you who haven’t heard, Gingrich took So. Carolina with 41 percent of the vote, followed by Romney with 27 percent and Santorum trailing with 17 percent.  The winner of the So. Carolina primary has gone on to win the GOP nomination in each election since 1980.

The big question is, if Newt Gingrich wins the Republican nomination, will he be a more formidable candidate against President Barack Obama than Mitt Romney?  He is an excellent debater, but so is Obama.  Gingrich has personal life baggage with his ex-wife that doesn’t play well with religious conservatives where the President is squeaky-clean.  Both men are highly intelligent and there is no doubt in the separation of ideologies.

Like they have been saying for over a year now, 2012 is going to be one hell of an election!

U.S. and China Ping Pong Diplomacy revisited in recent Iran and Russia incidents

Time covers Ping Pong Diplomacy

Most Americans, and Chinese I suspect, have forgotten the occurrence when the U.S. Ping Pong team in 1971 was invited to China, all expenses paid, to play in Beijing, including tours of the Great Wall.  Time magazine called it “The ping heard around the world,” and rightfully so since American/Chinese relations were in the toilet at the time.  It was offhanded notification by the Chinese that they wanted to improve relations with the U.S.  It worked.

Richard Nixon, President at the time, felt the gesture was a good one and ended up making a trip to China later as the first American President to visit that country.  Premiere Chou En-lai even invited the Americans to a banquet in the Great Hall of the People.  Ten journalists including five from the U.S. were also invited.  In addition to visiting the Great Wall, the U.S. entourage saw the Summer Palace as well as being able to talk to Chinese students and factory workers and attend the ballet.

But what had led up to this competition between the two teams?  It was simply a chance meeting between the two stars, one from China’s team, Zhuang Zedong, the other from America’s team, Glenn Cowan, on a bus in Japan following the 31st World Table Tennis Championship in 1971.  Zedong presented Cowan with a gift, a silk-screen portrait of the Huangshan Mountains, which was unusual since we were in the midst of the cold war and China considered all Americans imperialists.

With no gift to return the favor at the time, in yet another chance meeting later, Cowan gave Zedong a T-shirt with a red, white and blue peace emblem flag with the words, "Let It Be."  This was followed by media coverage that resulted in the statement from Cowan that he would like to visit China, which eventually got to the Chinese Department of Foreign Affairs.  They, of course, declined the offer but Chou En-lai and Chairman Mao Zedong thought better of the situation and turned it into an international affair.

Find out who won the tournament in the video below:

At the time, many wondered why the major powers of the world couldn’t just turn their differences into one big ping pong game, rather than the on-going cold war and actual wars of destruction and loss of lives.  Of course it never happened but there have been incidents over the years where countries, normally at each other’s throats, have halted the conflict temporarily to come to the aid of each other.  Two such occurrences happened recently.



Iran seaman thanks US Navy



During January of this year, the U.S. Navy rescued Iranian fishermen three times.  The first, an Iranian fishing dhow that flooded, requiring the men to abandon it and board other nearby dhows.  The Navy provided them food and water.  Earlier in the month the Americans rescued 13 Iranian fishermen who had been captured by Somali pirates.  And just days later another rescue by the U.S. Coast Guard of six Iranian fishermen in waters off Iraq.  The Iranians said, "Without your help, we were dead. Thank you for all you did for us."



Russian tanker in Nome, AK



And then it was Russia that came to the aid of weathered-in Nome, Alaska, which has experienced one of the severest winters in decades with temperatures dipping more than 30 below zero.  Nome would have run out of fuel by March or April, which was long before their next delivery.  A path had to be cleared through thick ice for the Russian tanker Renda by a Coast Guard cutter for the two 700 yards long parallel hoses to unload 1.3 million gallons of fuel.

All in a day’s work you might say?  Actually, on the outset, it is an example of how world powers can work together in simple ways to come to the aid of those in need.  It’s no different than how Americans, when challenged with a crisis, pull together to help each other, no matter what race, religion or status.  It seems that we all have good intentions that we follow through on but it all eventually reverts back to business as usual.  Why? 

If blacks don’t back Occupy Movement will they back Democrats in November?

We can thank the Tea Party for repeated accusations of racism that once again reminded us of Southern bigotry and the Ku Klux Klan.  The media accused it of being “racially exclusionary, if not…racist,” according to The Washington Examiner.  Well-known African American congresswoman Maxine Waters, a Democrat from California, said tea partiers can “go straight to hell.”  While perhaps not quite so contentious, progressives would like to see them just gone.



Tea Party parade



The Tea Party is predominantly white but 6 percent of its supporters are black compared to only 1.6 percent for Occupy Wall Street and a total in the U.S. population of 12.6 percent.  Further, blacks represent 25 percent of New York residents.  So where were they on the first Occupy Wall Street demonstration on September 17, and thereafter across the country?  One opinion was that blacks did not participate because they have been through this before and think it’s hopeless.

I did a post back in December, “Immigrants want a part of the Occupy Movement,” including the agreement that no one is more likely to be in the Occupy “99%” than Hispanics.  Of course, wouldn’t blacks fit the same criteria?  Currently 60.7 percent of black incomes are under $50,000, compared to 40.3 for whites.  Median income for whites is $63,404 compared to that of blacks which is $38,835.  U.S. median income is $58,924.

Although 3 years old, the video below is an good example of black voting history:



The Washington Post also wonders about black inactivity in the Occupy Movement, commenting that some well known blacks like Cornel West,

Russell Simmons, Kanye West and Rep. John Lewis, (D-GA) have participated but nothing like Latino moves to join in as a group.  There was an “Occupy the Hood” faction that attempted to get more people involved that has apparently made some inroads but nothing significant.

Based on a 2011 Washington Post survey, the conclusion was made, that, in spite of their economic standing, blacks feel more optimistic than whites.  This is hard to understand when black unemployment is at 16 percent, teenagers 50 percent, compared to 8.6 percent for whites.  The survey concluded that 24 percent of blacks were “very” or “somewhat satisfied” with the economy compared to only 12 percent of whites.  Go figure.  

And here we go again.  In a recent NBC poll a huge 73 percent of Americans considered the country to be on the wrong track compared to 19 percent who thought it was.  49 percent of blacks thought the U. S. was on the right track compared to 38 percent who didn’t.  Some say there is the Obama factor.  The figures show that 86 percent of blacks approve of the President compared to 57 percent overall.

Still unanswered is why blacks have not joined the Occupy Movement with more enthusiasm.  Larry Elder, author of The Washington Examiner article thinks that if they support Occupy it might appear that blacks don’t think Obama has done his job in Washington.  But since the substance of the Occupy Movement is inequality, along with the fact that blacks have been fighting this for years with limited results, I find their detachment confusing, even alarming.

In the end, Elder says it really isn’t why so few blacks are participating in the Occupy Movement; rather, “why so many blacks still belong to the Democratic party.”  I personally believe they still understand that the Dems., no matter how many mistakes they have made and will make re. minorities, that the least they do will be gargantuan over what the GOP would offer.

Arizona can thank National Football League for Martin Luther King holiday

Russell Pearce, JT Ready

Racism is still rampant in Arizona evidenced by the anti-immigration law SB-1070 passed in 2010 by deposed State Sen. Russell Pearce.  The state finally got rid of the likes of him, surrounded by his buddy J.T. Ready, racist and neo-Nazi from Pearce’s hometown of Mesa, AZ.  Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a Pearce supporter, has his own problems with racial discrimination from his raids on towns in his county for the sole purpose of harassing Hispanics.



Russell Pearce, Sheriff Arpaio



The people of Arizona must agree with this dogma because they elected Arpaio Sheriff in 1992 and he is still in office.  Pearce was elected to the Arizona legislature in 2000 and served there eleven years before he was recalled in November of 2011.  They both come from solid Arizona roots dating back to 1987 when Gov. Evan Mecham rescinded the former Governor Bruce Babbitt’s decision to honor Martin Luther King with an Arizona holiday.

That was almost 25 years ago but the Rev. Warren H. Stewart still remembers the struggle that eventually ended up with a MLK holiday in Arizona.  Stewart, a prominent Phoenix pastor who was the face of the movement then, says the state legislature viewed King as a Black hero but also as an agitator.  In those days African-Americans represented only 3 percent of the population.  But in 1990 voters went to the polls to decide whether or not King should have his holiday.  The proposition failed and Stewart felt he had done all he could.

Below is a must see video of Evan Mecham racism and other stupidity:



But then the football hit the fan.  By now Arizona had a reputation for being a racial battleground.  The state was boycotted by well know musicians and national conventions decided to take their business elsewhere.  However, it was the cancellation by the NFL of the 1993 Super Bowl scheduled to be played in Sun Devil stadium that broke the racists’ backs.  The game was moved to Pasadena, California. 

Rev. Stewart set things in motion again but didn’t like the idea that the change of the state’s attitude was due almost entirely to the loss of the Super Bowl.  Stewart took his dilemma to apartheid activist Leon Howard Sullivan who lived in Scottsdale and who said the Reverend had piqued the consciences of the business community, followed by his admonition to take their money because it was for a good cause. 

Stewart did and ran a campaign resulting in MLK Day being approved by a vote in 1992.  Arizona was the only state that had to put this holiday to a vote after a 1986 decision by President Ronald Reagan naming it as a national holiday.  On the first King Holiday in January of 1993, 19,000 Arizonans celebrated, joined by civil-rights activist Rosa Parks and musician Stevie Wonder.  Phoenix won the Super Bowl for 1996.

Rev. Stewart still believed the King Holiday was only a symbol and much still needed to be done for Arizona to move “from symbol to substance” in the treatment of all races and ethnicities.  Just recently he said that after 20 years this still has not happened.  He mentioned the anti-immigration bill SB-1070 and said the incivility of politics today is turning Martin Luther King’s dream into a nightmare. 

My gut tells me that if Arizona doesn’t wake up soon from this horrible dream and get rid of those in state government that harbor those prejudices, there won’t be enough advertising possible to draw tourists and new business back to the state.

POLITICAL ANALYSIS: The Hispanic vote and the 12 swing states

Politico says “deep voter dissatisfaction with the economy” is a real threat to President Obama and congressional incumbents in twelve swing states, according to a new Gallup poll.  If you aren’t sure what those dozen states are here is a lineup: Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.  Gallup did their survey in October 2011. 

In general, the poll says 60 percent of the residents in those states don’t think they are any better off than they were in 2008, compared to 37 percent who think they are.  Measured with non-swing states, 54 percent of respondents said they weren’t better off, while 44 percent said they were better off.  I decided to take the 12 states and evaluate them in relation to their Hispanic population to see if the President can count on a majority of this vote in 2012.

The swing state with the most electoral votes is Florida counting 29, followed by Pennsylvania with 20, Ohio 18, Michigan 16, No. Carolina 15, Virginia 13, Wisconsin 10, Colorado 9, Nevada and Iowa with 6 each, New Mexico with 5 and New Hampshire with 4.  This represents a total of 151 electoral votes; 270 are needed to win.  Eight of these states have had increases in their Latino population of over 50 percent since 2002.

Of those with electoral votes of 10 or above, Hispanics have representative percentages in their states’ populations as follows: Florida 22.5%; Penn. 5,7%; Ohio 3.1%; Michigan 4.4%; No. Carolina 8.4%; Virginia 7.9%; and Wisconsin 5.7%.  But add to that smaller electoral number states like Colorado 20.7% Latino; Nevada 26.5 %; and New Mexico 46.3%, and the question is just how much impact can the Hispanic vote have?



2008 vote



Obama won an astounding 359 electoral votes in 2008 taking all the 2012 swing states.  He also walked away with 133 votes from non-swing states like Washington, Oregon, California, Minnesota, Illinois and New York.  Adding this to the 151 swing state votes and you have 284 electoral votes, enough to win the election.  The increase in the Latino population alone could be a factor in delivering the swing states in 2012. 

The question, of course, is whether Barack Obama can convince Hispanics in the swing states he’s the one, and if the economy continues to improve and deliver other states plus the additional five above.

There were 6,646,000 Latino voters in 2010, which amounted to 31.2 percent of eligible voters.  84.2 percent of those had some college and 79.4 percent had incomes of over $50,000.  In one study, the Democrats have an advantage with Hispanics with higher educational attainment, as well as those with longer tenure in the country.  I couldn’t find duration figures on legal Latinos in the U.S. but of the unauthorized 10.2 million here, nearly two-thirds have lived here for at least 10 years suggesting many citizens could be here even longer.

Two GOP states, Arizona and Texas, have a combined 49 electoral votes and could be up for grabs in November.  The Arizona Hispanic population is 29.6 percent, Texas 37.6 percent, both significant enough to at least turn the states purple and seriously challenge Republicans.  No one knows what the impact of the Latino vote will be this November, but it does look as if with the surge in population plus increased voter turnout, Democrats could be riding a wave.



2012 Electoral votes

 As you can see from the above, the numbers are there.  And if the GOP continues its rhetoric against the Hispanic community which doesn’t seem to be letting up, the Dems are even more of a sure bet for this vote.  But since the immigration issue is consistently ranked second with Latinos, behind the economy, but ahead of jobs, health care education and taxes, President Obama still has a lot of work to do.

Bruce Springsteen’s latest studio album captures meaning of Occupy Movement

Apparently the Boss is angry again and his new album will vent some of this anger which closely parallels the emotions of the Occupy Movement.  Starting with Occupy Wall Street protests in New York, the crusade has literally moved all over the world.  But Springsteen remains grounded in his concern for the blue-collar group and liberal causes.  Although most of the album was written and recorded before the Occupy Movement started, it still reflects the sentiments of the fight for equality.

In an article where Princeton professor Cornel West describes the Occupy Movement as an “idea whose time has come,” Tea Party crackpot Michael Prell compares Occupy with the Berkeley Free Speech movement that took place in 1964-1965, “right down to the babbling incoherence of the participants.”  Now this takes the cake considering this man, who is a strategist for the TP Patriots, represents a bunch of blithering blockheads with double-digit IQs.



So what was wrong with the Berkeley demonstrations that resulted in the University backing off and allowing academic freedom with open political activity on the campus, with the Sproul Hall sit-ins eventually creating a place of open discussion?  Liberal, yes, and perhaps contrary to a conservative approach that hides its ideology behind the dogmas of religion and worship of big business.  Berkeley has gone on to represent a progressive attitude that has become a solid foundation of the left.

Sidney Tarrow, a visiting professor at Cornell Law School, believes the Occupy Movement will emerge as a “more potent national force” after cities get past the “encampment” issue.  And this may be the real connection between the Berkeley Sproul Hall sit-ins where you have to take a physical position to make your point.  Tarrow calls it the creation of a “communal basis for future social movement.”  So where do the “Occupiers” go and how do they make their voice heard without the bivouac?  Tarrow says they should “Move on” and “march to Washington.”

Bryan Boydston in The Humanist wants to know, “What Exactly Does the Occupy Movement Want?” when he refers to the Lennon/McCartney song, “Revolution.”  He also refers to the ideology “rebel without a cause” when commenting on the disorganization of the movement so far.  Boydston quotes Naomi Wolf in the Guardian asking the same question, receiving numerous responses she capsuled into the following three:

1.    Reverse the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court further allowing the influence of money in U.S. elections.

2.    The movement wants fraud and manipulation taken out of the U.S financial system.

3.    Prevent politicians from using their positions in Congress to benefit corporations they have invested in.

In addition to Wolf’s three Boydston has three of his own which he thinks may be more directly focused on what occupiers want:

1. Reversing Citizens United is good but he thinks the Movement is more about the total economic inequality that exists in the U.S.
2. He questions regulation as the “fix-all” for the financial community and thinks more of it would not have prevented the recession.
3. With little evidence of insider trading by Congress and because they are already prohibited from passing laws that impact companies in which they hold any significant interest, this problem is probably already covered.

So one might assume from all this exposition that you can boil down what the Occupy Movement wants into one simple phrase: Balance the inequity of the economic system so that a more equitable arrangement exists for all.

I’ll leave you with Boydston’s quote from the Lennon/McCartney song, “Revolution,” which is actually appropriate for the Occupy Movement.

You say you want a revolution?
Well, you know, we all want to change the world.
…You say you got a real solution?
Well, you know, we’d all love to see the plan.

New Hampshire GOP Primary 2012 compared to 2008…Obama’s opposition

Mitt Romney

Newt Gingrich said that if Mitt Romney didn’t get a 50 percent win in New Hampshire, it wouldn’t be a mandate for his nomination.  In 2008 in NH, John McCain received only 37.71 percent of the vote and went on to win.  Mike Huckabee came in third with 11.44 percent.  This week Romney came in with almost 40 percent of the NH vote compared to 32.17 in 2008.  The Iowa Caucus took place on the same date, Jan. 3^rd, both years.

For the Democrats, Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire by 39.09 percent in 2008, beating Barack Obama’s 36.45 percent, but Obama went on to win the nomination.  John Edwards came in third at 16.94 percent.  There will obviously be no Democratic primary in 2012 but what this says is that New Hampshire isn’t always a clincher.  When Obama became the Democratic presumptive nominee on June 3, 2008, New Hampshire then cast all its 30 votes for him, one of only three states to do so.



For years now the New Hampshire Primary and the Iowa Caucus have received more media attention than all the other primaries combined.  This publicity and resulting momentum by a decisive frontrunner can have great impact on the future of his or her candidacy.  According to one report, a win in New Hampshire can increase that candidate’s share of the resulting primary count by 27 percent.

Former NH Gov. John Sununu said that people in Iowa pick corn, people in New Hampshire pick presidents, referring to the race to be the first primary.  From the late 1980s the NH primary has been considered an early measurement of the national attitudes toward candidates.  One of the major reasons the state is a good representation of political sentiment across the U.S. is that Independents are allowed to vote in the primary, although with some manipulations at the time of voting.

What isn’t representative in New Hampshire, and which will be a significant factor in 2012, is that the state is only 4 percent Hispanic compared to 25 percent nationwide.  If Latinos get themselves organized and continue their efforts to register qualified voters, this block could be awesome and throw the NH Primary results into a quandary.  In other words, it’s all up in the air and nothing is really certain until the fat lady sings in November.

Forty percent of voters in New Hampshire are Independent which is in keeping with their representation nationally and this is a major reason it is considered a swing state in national elections.  But as far as predictions go, Bill Clinton, Geo. W. Bush and Barack Obama came in second in the NH Primary and all went on to become President.  So go figure for November.

But does this mean that Ron Paul, who came in second this year in New Hampshire with 23 percent, has a chance at the presidency?  I think not, and this just confirms what a crazy year for politics this has been so far, and will continue to be until the November elections.  I think it is also a solid sign that voters will both register and come out in droves in November, emerging from an apathetic population that has decided it isn’t going to take it anymore. 

Of course the outcome will be heavily favored toward progressives.

Crime down across U.S. but not because of more guns on the street

Except for the killing of police officers, crime is dropping in all other major categories, a trend that has now lasted four-and-one-half years.  Of course the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) would like to have you think it is due to the recent proliferation of guns on the street, which they are responsible for.  Not so.  According to the WSJ/Online, “Police officials and some criminologists attribute the persistent crime drop to more-sophisticated policing methods, such as targeting hot spots with extra officers.”

CNN reported nearly 500,000 criminal background checks during the last week before Christmas 2011.  The NRA told CNN that this is due to scared citizens afraid that cuts in police coverage will result in less protection.  This is the same kind of bullshit this organization of crackpots has been spreading for years.  It sounds like someone is equipping an army, and some of those guns will end up in irresponsible households like the one recently in Mesa, Arizona where a 7-year-old kid took a gun to school. 

"You keep any special interest group alive by nurturing the crisis atmosphere," is the statement of former NRA chief Ray Arnet.  And it is something they have done well for years working their membership of yahoos into a frenzy over any issue even slightly related to gun control.  The best recent example was when Barack Obama was elected President, the NRA told its members he would take away all their guns.  Thousands went out and bought more.



The $1 million Wayne LaPierre



Any intelligent individual can see this lobbying effort is designed for two reasons.  One, to encourage more gun sales for their high contributing gun manufacturers, and two, to support the NRA’s annual budget of over $200 million.  A pathetic membership provides people like its Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre “lavish benefits,” as the Democratic Underground puts it, with $1,000,000 in yearly salary and benefits.

The Christian Science Monitor lists six key reasons crime is down and not one of them mentions having more guns on the street.  They are:

1.    More incarceration of criminals meaning fewer are on the street.

2.    Better policing through being more proactive through surveillance.

3.    Social programs working with community groups to keep youths engaged.

4.    Simple demographics of a smaller population of the young people who commit more crime.

5.    Unemployment benefits through more government support that reduces stress-related crimes.

6.    Fewer opportunities with unemployment high and more people at home to protect their property.

But there is still the tragedy of more officers dying and the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund says 2011 could be the first year in ten years that more officers have died from gunshot wounds than from traffic accidents.  I say that is due entirely to loose gun laws and the fact that guns are everywhere in this country.  And in Arizona, hardly a day goes by that someone is not shot and in many cases killed.  This state has the loosest weapons laws in the nation.

The NRA will never change its methods or philosophy on gun rights, and advocates like myself will never change when it comes to our viewpoint on sane gun control.  Should the 2012 elections provide some relief from the oppression of the conservative right, in particular the Tea Party, and we see changes to a more progressive Supreme Court, it will be time to challenge the 2^nd Amendment to define just what the specificity is of the term, “right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

Visit the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence here.

Obama up with Hispanics, down with youth

It was both the youth vote and Latinos that helped get President Barack Obama elected in 2008.  One is still hanging in there and the other has real reservations over what he has done for them.  Even though Hispanics are concerned that the President hasn’t done enough for their people, they still support him.  Considering the way the GOP looks down on this group, that’s a wise choice.  The younger vote is something else, and unless Obama puts them back to work soon, they may just skip the elections.

Only 55.3 percent of Americans age 16 to 29 have jobs.  According to Brad Chase, Barack Obama missed the boat on two issues.  Rather than create jobs for the young unemployed, he talked about it in community forums.  Rather then really providing a bailout on the huge burden of college loans, he only reduced rates by a pathetic 0.5 percent.  This has led to an approval rate by the 18 to 29 age group of less than 50 percent.

But the Prez just may have his sights on the burgeoning Latino voting population to carry him through in 2012.  Combining this with running against a Republican Congress that has done everything they can to defeat anything he proposes, but has done nothing of their own in the last three years may be a winning combination.  At the end of the year, Hispanics favored the President over GOP front-runner Mitt Romney by a margin of over 2 to 1.



According to a Pew survey, two-thirds of Latino registered voters supported Democrats where only 20 percent were for Republicans.  However, Obama’s deportations are an issue where 77 percent who knew of this disapproved of the administration’s policy.  But in a recent proposed change in migrant policy where immigrants closely related to U.S. Citizens would not have to leave the country to apply for legal status, the President got their attention again.

There is a group up for grabs, the Millenials, in their early 20s, and Brad Chase says they have a short memory, but they have experienced hard times in Obama’s last three years.  They aren’t yet leaning to the right, but neither are they enthused with the left.  They are currently in the middle, and The Center for the Study of the American Electorate says they can be had by a candidate that focuses on answers to their issues.

Chase says the President or a presidential candidate might do or talk about doing three things for the youth vote.  First, create a limited student debt forgiveness program for those over $30,000.  Second, Place control on “Predatory lender/services” where servicers like American Education Services (AES) resort to bullying tactics with parents.  Third, allow the discharge of a student loan in bankruptcy.

With two-thirds of registered Hispanic voters favoring the Democratic Party, there is good reason to believe this could translate into more Democrats elected to the U.S. Senate and House, as well as state legislatures.  This will be more prominent in border-states like Arizona, New Mexico and Texas that have hefty Latino populations.  Once this trend gets rolling it will be hard to stop considering the boom in the growth of Hispanics throughout the U.S.

One thing is certain, with a 9 percent favor rating of Congress, which is primarily focused on the GOP, and early signs that these yahoos aren’t about to change their tactics—specifically because the Tea Party won’t let them—progressives in the next few months leading up to November must emphasize this to the public.  If we, starting with President Obama, don’t take full advantage of this golden opportunity, it will be a loss that goes down in history.