Tonight, Puerto Rico’s Noticias 24/7 broadcast a debate to discuss the island’s upcoming November 6 political status plebiscite. The moderated forum featured pro-statehood Governor Luis Fortuño, pro-independence candidate for governor Juan Dalmau, and Luis Delgado, who supports a freely associated sovereign state.
I could get into the details and try to encapsulate decades of political status history into this post, but that would only complicate matters. All you need to know is this: Puerto Rico has been a commonwealth (some would say “colony”) of the United States since 1952 and a US territory (some would say “colony) since American troops landed (some would say “invaded”) on the island in 1898. In 1917, Puerto Ricans became (some would say “forced to become”) US citizens. On the island, Puerto Ricans do not have the same political rights as American citizens who live on the mainland. To some, this only proves how colonial Puerto Rico is. To others, this confirms that Puerto Ricans on the island are just second-class American citizens stuck in status limbo. Add to the fact that Puerto Ricans on the island fight for the United States, receive federal benefits and entitlements from the US, but then represent Puerto Rico in the Olympics, cry when Miss Puerto Rico is named Miss Universe, have immense pride in their boricua-ness, and are still a people with a strong national identity, and you can see how complicated this issue really is.
In addition, let’s mention that some Americans would rather cut off Puerto Rico from the federal rolls even though generations of Puerto Ricans have defended Americans’ rights and freedoms, and it gets really complicated. Wait a minute, there is a Spanish-speaking island that is part of the United States? When did that happen and why are we allowing it to happen? You get the idea. (For more on this anti-Puerto Rican sentiment in the United States, you can read a column I wrote over a year ago.)
Finally, since the plebiscite is non-binding, and in essence nothing could ever happen until the US Congress decides to reopen the status process for Puerto Rico, Puerto Ricans are literally voting for an issue they have no control over. Congress owns you, Puerto Rico. At least for now.
The whole status question is… complicated. Like really complicated.
At tonight’s debate it got even more complicated because not everyone’s position was represented. You see, the first part of the two-question plebiscite asks Puerto Ricans if they would like to maintain the current territorial relationship with the United States. The three debate participants who accepted Noticias 24/7′s invitation all agreed that NO is the only option for Puerto Ricans. The one person favoring a YES vote, the Popular Party’s Alejandro García Padilla, Fortuño’s main challenger in the gubernatorial election (also on November 6), didn’t even show up at the debate. You would think that García Padilla knew about a poll where 51% of Puerto Ricans actually favor a YES vote to the first question, and you would also think that if this were his position, he would have had the political courage to get up in front of a televised debate and defend his position. Especially when the guy you want to defeat in a few weeks is also debating. García Padilla didn’t, and it was a costly mistake. I actually think Fortuño will win the governor’s race now.
Alejandro García Padilla
And I also think that García Padilla’s absence hurt the entire YES position as well. While Fortuño, Dalmau, and Delgado could all agree on a NO vote even though they would disagree on the second part of the plebiscite—which asks voters to choose either statehood, independence or freely associated sovereign state—tonight’s debate proved to me that a NO vote is now the only option for Puerto Ricans. Why? Because in the end, even though Congress doesn’t have to do anything, a public vote that would reject the island’s current status will get attention. Voting NO gives Puerto Ricans a chance that Congress would maybe revisit the status question. Voting YES would keep the status quo and last time I checked, this commonwealth ride needs to end. Fortuño, Dalmau, and Delgado would concur. Puerto Rico really hasn’t improved at all and the “colonially entitled society” is still reality. Now I could have been convinced that a YES vote would actually still be possible, but the guy who supports the YES vote wasn’t at the debate. Fail.
As for Delgado and his position on a “freely associated sovereign state?” Let’s just start with the term. It’s way too long. However, in theory, this status option is the best of both worlds: it allows for Puerto Rico to have a more flexible arrangement with the United States without having Puerto Ricans lose their US citizenship (at least that is what Delgado and others hope). Less dependence on the US economy could occur, since it would give Puerto Rico the ability to negotiate with the US on issues pertaining to the island. For example, Puerto Rican ports could be open to ships from others countries, allowing for more economic opportunities. This arrangement would also maintain many of the things that make Puerto Rico unique, both linguistically and culturally.
Now there is theory and then there is the selling of that theory. I thought that Delgado didn’t do a great job selling this option to Puerto Ricans. It felt muddied and too complex. I can’t recall if Delgado really presented a concrete example or an explanation that basically tried to answer the question that always hounds this option: how is this different from the current setup? And will Puerto Ricans really maintain their US citizenship in this new scenario? Delgado was correct in saying that a NO vote is the way to go for the first part of the plebiscite, but in his push to promote his option, his biggest point was that Puerto Rico would work with the United States to determine its destiny. Couldn’t we just do that now? What is to stop us from just determining our own destiny and then letting the US know our intentions? We really need a vote for that?
Puerto Rican Governor Luis Fortuño
Fortuño, quite frankly, gave the most coherent argument, even though it was an argument that, at times, felt like a politician overpromising the world. Fortuño—who is facing a very tough re-election campaign (we will see after tonight’s gaffe by García Padilla) and a Puerto Rican economy that is still stuck—basically used the promise of statehood as the cure-all for Puerto Rico’s problems. Need jobs? Let’s become a state. Want more federal money? Let’s become a state. Let’s lower the crime rate? Statehood is the only option.
I thought Fortuño did give the best line of the night when he shared his thoughts about the status quo: “I believe Puerto Ricans will reject what holds us back.” I believe that, too. Most Puerto Ricans I know feel that change must indeed happen, and with García Padilla not attending the debate, his absence only solidified that need for change.
The governor’s strongest argument for statehood should have been the only one he should have used: equal rights and political representation. In essence, that is the biggest prize—Puerto Rico could get six-seven members of the House of Representatives, two Senators, and also the right to vote for President. No one can question that, even though Fortuño won’t let Puerto Ricans know that many Americans aren’t really gung-ho about a predominantly Spanish-speaking state of the Union.
Furthermore, Fortuño was savvy enough to know that many Puerto Ricans living on the mainland (particularly those in Florida) were watching the debate, so he made it a point to remind people (twice) that Mitt Romney has already promised that if Puerto Ricans vote NO on part 1 and STATEHOOD on part 2 and if Romney got elected President, a new President Romney would begin the statehood process. That sure are a lot of “ifs.”
And Fortuño really stretched the statehood hard sell by saying that not only will Puerto Ricans get more federal aid (more than 2 billion dollars), they won’t really need to pay federal taxes, since most Puerto Ricans don’t earn enough to pay federal taxes. Yes, this is coming from a Republican governor, and the last time I checked, Republicans in general don’t like the fact that 47% of Americans aren’t paying taxes right now. Weird, huh? Welcome to Puerto Rico, where down is up and up is down.
The original Puerto Rican flag flown during the Grito de Lares in Lares, PR, 1868
Which brings me to Dalmau, the standard-bearer for Puerto Rico’s Independence Party. Dalmau is sharp and I have to say that his points about Puerto Rico’s highly dependent economic relationship with the United States and how Puerto Rico is seen by many as just another playground of US corporations are good ones. Has Puerto Rico’s progress been snuffed because we are still a US colony? Many would agree, and it would be hard to argue against that. In addition, Dalmau’s distinction between citizenship and nationalism and how they are not the same also resonated. He was also quick to point out the island’s long and vibrant history, as well as the legacy many of its independence leaders have formed.
Yet Dalmau missed one very important point: how will Puerto Rico succeed once it becomes independent? Why didn’t he talk more about that? In the end, Dalmau didn’t give many specifics and that is the one issue that still troubles many when it comes to independence. It still feels like unchartered territory.
Finally, Dalmau’s critique of Puerto Rico being the world’s “last colony” will always speak to the hearts of many Puerto Ricans. But how effective is this call to elevate the colony to a new status when in the end Dalmau is just as passive as everybody else? Has the repression of the independence movement in Puerto Rico really succeeded? It appears so, since Dalmau would rather participate in a plebiscite that is still dependent on the United States instead of taking control of the plebiscite and demanding that the will of Puerto Ricans be heard.
And that is the biggest problem with tonight’s debate. All three speakers (and the guy who wasn’t there) were never active with their comments and remarks. It was all about pushing for a non-binding vote that may or may not send a message to the United States. The debate and the politics surrounding it still assume that the United States is the Big Daddy and Puerto Ricans are just kids asking for the car keys. What if Daddy gets angry? What do we do then?
True political courage and leadership occur when people step away from the same talking points that got them to where they are and begin to literally alter the discourse. I would have had more respect for all the speakers tonight if they stood there and announced that the plebiscite would be binding and it would lead to real self-determination. I would have had more respect if the speakers told people that they should have their family members living on the mainland begin to pressure elected officials in Congress and called for a binding vote. I would have had more respect if the speakers tonight took control of their destiny. Now. Like right now. What would have been more powerful—a televised debate that didn’t reveal anything new or a rally among all of the island’s political parties live streaming into Washington DC saying that Puerto Ricans’ voices must be heard?
Instead, Puerto Rico is still playing games and the biggest charade is the question of political status. No one is truly taking this seriously because it is all part of a system that has been central to the island’s politics for decades. Just dangle illusions of status and maybe just maybe the United States will listen to us.
Tonight, the people of Puerto Rico could have screamed in unison: ¡BASTA YA! Our destiny is in our hands and no one else’s. However, all I heard were the same old tired whimpers. I am done listening to the arguments of the past. Are you? And if so, what are you going to do about it?
Unfortunately, the ridiculous 3 min restriction on answers & rebuttals made it impossible for any candidate to get into details.
Therefore, it became a choir speech/pep rally.
Fortuño explained statehood well, although I don’t remember him mentioning congressmen and the Prez vote ( I did do a bathroom call,, may have missed it.). Made the point that almost 5 million have voted for statehood with their feet.
Dalmau was equally eloquent in explaining independence and the benefit of joining the international community.
However, Delgado disappointed me, in the sense that (is he a lawyer?) He seemed to spin with what Soveregn free association would mean. Very PPD ish.
Although he did mention that PR and US would negotiate nation to nation, Puerto Ricans have a bad habit of mixing “country” with “nationhood”, often calling the Commonwealth “nation” or “país” in a affectionate way. Even Texans and Southerners call their states “country” in a local sense. Delgado did not (purposely,I believe) mention that PR would no longer be a part of the US. He did not mention that US nationality and Citizenship would end,as Congress has repeatedly told the PPD. Dalmau was even disengenous in saying that Free Association was NOT a type of independence. He even claimed that US citizenship would continue “y nunca la quitaran”. That’s a bold statement. I started to wonder whether DELGADO WAS REALLY THERE FOR PADILLA?
Thanks, Luis. for your review and thoughts on this as well!
“The one person favoring a YES vote, the Popular Party’s Alejandro García Padilla…” Julito
Even Garcia-Padilla and most of the PPD should vote NO on the first question. The PPD’s preferred status is the “Enhanced Commonwealth” which will be on the ballot as 1 of the 3 options. This selection should not be confused with a Free Association. An Enhanced Commonwealth would provide ALL the Federal Entitlements without paying one single dollar in Federal Taxes to include medicare, medicaid and SSN which islanders do pay now under the present Commonwealth status. Maybe that is why Garcia-Padilla avoided the debates. Congress would never, should never, agree to such a ridiculous arrangement.
Congress has made clear ,that type of commonwealth is unconstitutional. You are correct.
Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless
I basically agree. A wasted opportunity.
I agree with both Julito and flyboy56. Wasted opportunity for Puerto Ricans to scream “¡Basta ya!” My view is that we do not have the courage to demand thinking that “daddy” is always mad and the Cadillac just came back from the showroom. We need to pay the taxes and that will make it clear to Congress to look at our situation. Maybe some of you do not agree with my statement. Just remember that we are still considered second class citizens, even though the blood of our people has maintained the United States. Not only that but if we were to be a nation, free and on our own, we would need to pay taxes to keep the progress we have attained. THERE WILL BE NO MORE MONIES FROM UNCLE SAM! Either we make it or go bust!
A Free Association with the U.S. means PRico is free to trade with whom they want to include the U.S., and free to govern the way they want. It does not provide for U.S. citizenship or money from the federal government. Puerto Rico would get military defense from the U.S. at no expense. If politicians are saying otherwise, they are promising something that congress will not accept. Therefore, it is not “the best of both worlds.”
If you want the best of both worlds then vote YES this November, or NO and then vote for Enhanced Commonwealth on the second question for those who really do want to have their cake and eat it too!
I have this post before in other places in which I am often asked why a PR from US(Born in PR), advocates for independence and this is usually my response. Its a response when many state supporters tend to use so call treaties, etc. to justify reason for been number 51.
I personally think that we PR tend to cling on these treaties, pacts, acts, etc. a little bit too much. I emphasized how much we should prepare for the unexpected (independence) instead of prepare for what most PR are waiting (Statehood and still waiting 100 years+). As much I enjoy the US, I cannot vouch to be a state to enjoy “full citizenship” when in the US not all citizens are treated equal. One of the points that Fortuno used to make a case for statehood is that PR has fought with the US ever since world war 1, and to my response is “and”, as I recall so did Native Americans, African-Americans, etc and becoming citizens didn’t guarantee any success. I sometimes think that in PR tend to have a false sense of entitlement when in reality if the issue was that congress wants PR to become 51st then it would have happened perhaps 20 years ago or so.
One day we might have another Millard Tyding in our hands to have the ear of congress and force independence on PR, many PR tend to feel that if they force ind. Is a violation of whatever treaty if I am not mistaken some historians and lawyers believe that the US is in violation of Treaty of Paris 1898.
Another issue is that in the US the most common candidate to become 51st is Washington DC, bringing a 51st state would also have a ripple effect to other territories US Virgin Islands, Marina Islands, and other areas to also inquire to become a state. I don’t think the US would be so eager to bring to debt in to what it already has.
I hate to be a separatist here but we have to work on what we have, this whole status is a sham played by both US and PR in which at the end who does really gain out of status? If one thing we can credit Luis Munoz Marin is that he dealt with the issue on what is on hands and not making the status issue the main priority it is toxic to the point we tend to forget what it is we need to do to better ourselves.
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/u-s-territories/481390-there-any-chance-puerto-rico-may-18.html#ixzz29gSSrQpw
“One of the points that Fortuno used to make a case for statehood is that PR has fought with the US ever since world war 1, and to my response is “and”, as I recall so did Native Americans, African-Americans, etc and becoming citizens didn’t guarantee any success.” david
You made a few good points david concerning the status, but I am not quite sure what you meant with the above statement. Are you saying the U.S. government should guarantee success wealth wise if someone goes to war to defend the U.S.? Because I believe it is our freedoms we fight for, not material wealth.
“As much I enjoy the US, I cannot vouch to be a state to enjoy “full citizenship” when in the US not all citizens are treated equal.” david
Can you provide proof of this? Because if someone who is a citizen of the U.S. is not being treated equally under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights then someone should be reported to the local authorities. Of course if you are referring to an illegal immigrant then that is a different story.
With the first comment regarding success, we cannot be naive to think that when we go to war is to defend our freedom(US Propaganda), I think anyone would notice that in the last few “wars’ whether is Gulf war 1(Protect US Investment in middle east) and 2(To find weapons of mass destruction that was never found), and the conflicts in Afghanistan(Bin Ladin, who apparently was killed in Pakistan) clearly US was not to fight for freedom but mostly something that interest the US whether is oil, location, etc. With that said if the argument is that the men and women of this country to fight for our freedom why is a continuous abandonment from the part of the US government to US veterans.
War has a ripple affect on EVERYONE, I am just making a case on how it affects those PR who were drafted WW1,2, Korean War, Vietnam, etc. If material was not the issue then it seems to be reason why many veterans are affected.
http://www.veteranjournal.com/homeless-soldiers/
Do you know the U.S. imports only about 20% of it’s oil from the M.E.? It’s a fact, look it up. So why does the U.S. spend so much on defense protecting the oil routes in the M.E.? So other countries don’t have to spend so much on defending their oil imports from the M.E. which they need for their economies which provide jobs. And the U.S. does not expect compensation for providing this service. Do I always agree with the decisions made by the government regarding foreign policy? Absolutely not. But your focus on the negative without addressing the many positive attributes is your own type of propaganda. Ask yourself, if not for the U.S. taking the lead in world affairs, what country would…China…Russia…EU, which is struggling economically, or maybe Iran? Trust me, someone will fill the vacuum if the U.S. were to collapse, which it just might with the extreme debt it is facing trying to take care of the world. This world is not a utopia and not everyone will get what they think they deserve. But it is a hell of a lot better than what it would have been if Hitler had won, or the U.S. had collapsed economically instead of Russia back in 1991.
The point I bring out on that comment is not constitutionally speaking that not all are treated equal, but in view of people in which we still deal with bigots who for some reason tend to get into power, who still feel superior to others. I often point out how PRicans in the island are often pitching the idea of full citizenship because they feel more American to say own Latin identity, but yet in mainland(US) PRicans are viewed culturally as another Latin country. Now when you mention a Latino you get Mexicans, Central Americans, South Americans, etc. And often than not a bad stigma follows latinos abroad and the question of illegal immigrants arises. We still are living in a country where racial tensions become the focal point in certain issues. I have seen media outlets specially fox news throw numbers on what percentage of people are on welfare, what race has the highest crime rate, etc. the message is clear and someone out there does not think we are all equal.
“I have seen media outlets specially fox news throw numbers on what percentage of people are on welfare, what race has the highest crime rate, etc. the message is clear and someone out there does not think we are all equal.” david
I live in Puerto Rico and have Choice Cable so I do not have access to Fox News. When I did get it here I watched it along with CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, CBS and ABC. Probably the only station of those I listed that rarely brings up the statistics you mentioned is MSNBC which is considered the exact opposite of Fox News by many. Now I can assure you the statistics you mentioned are reported by the rest of the news channels. If the statistics can be supported with facts then these findings are in no way racist or trying to make other people appear less equal. If you learn a particular group of people are struggling then you can start to resolve the problem. How can something be fixed if it is not known? Don’t take it personally. Even if only one American is suffering it is still the responsibility of all Americans to help that person. The same should be applied to all groups of Americans.
body {word-wrap: break-word; background-color:#ffffff;}You’re right. MSNBC (mslsd,lol) and Fox Newschannel are the two extremes. Look at Chris mathews quotes…..lol….(yes, he’s the one who said he feels a nice “tingling sensation go up his leg when Obama speaks”. I’m not touching that one….”Tonight was not a good night for MSNBC”. “OBAMA!!, watch this network only, well help you win!!!” Chris Mathews after Obamas weak 1st Debate. Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless
Fly, not taken personal I like see other peoples opinion. Its a different monster living in PR and seen US politics from abroad than to say living in US and experiencing life in the US first hand. The minute that a PR lands here in the US he/she is just another latino just as a mexican, etc. I tend to get a sense that politicians in PR tend to paint the picture of statehood to PR as of all roses as if there is a major support from the US and congress when there is not much support.
I am trying to bring the point that here in the US is not the same case. I do agree with this article and based on other peoples comment, PRicans MUST stand up on their own and take it upon themselves to resolve the issue of status. In example Fortuno who ties are primarily republican party. In PR republicans are not viewed the same way as in US, I believe latinos in the US will feel some resentment towards a latino that supports republicans imagine how latinos would feel of PR becomes a state and votes republican?.Latinos has voted dominantly democrats by 2 to 1 margin. So the status wreaks complexity all over. The only propaganda I am guilty is just letting PR know is best to prepare for independence before its forced.For every Julio Valera there is trying to bring a message we going to have 10 Glen Beck in america spewing the wrong message regarding the status of PR.
“I believe latinos in the US will feel some resentment towards a latino that supports republicans imagine how latinos would feel of PR becomes a state and votes republican?” david
This is the problem with the Democratic party. Especially how minorities treat each other when a minority decides to step away from the “herd” and join the Republican party. They are called traitors, cool aid drinkers and worse. You very rarely ever see white Americans bashing each other for the choices they make regarding politics. Only in the rare cases when a politician decides to change parties because they believe it will help their reelection. This is type of behavior is voter intimidation to the extreme. Yet you seldom hear leaders in the Democratic party condemning these actions. It’s as though they are encouraging them.
As for Julito, you do know david he is a PRican elite, educated at Harvard and now living in Boston. He was fortunate to have parents who saw the value in a good bilingual education. Personally, I believe his opinions concerning what takes place here is invalidated as he pays no income taxes to Hacienda, is not registered to vote here and feels free to bad mouth the very Americans he lives and works with on a daily basis. In a word, he is a hypocrite. Feel free to write a rebuttal Julito and show me where I am wrong.
I myself don’t understand people who make it in the USA, yet hate to see PuertoRicans on the island have the same rights and oportunities. Actually, everyone has a right to their opinions, but as I speak to many fellow Ricans,, I get the sense that the main reason to oppose statehood from stateside Ricans,is the misguided image of Puerto Rico as the island of endless sugarcane fields they left as children. They all expect to build their casitas,and retire there. Unfortunately, PR is modern and developed. Suburban cul de sacs are verywhere. Most are gated communities( a major symbol of status in the hispanic world) . Fact is there is no room for the 5,000,000mainland Ricans for even half to return.
As for politics, I find Black Americans as the most intolerant towards Latino Republicans. They really think Hispanics owe them their civil rights!!! I’ve been called a “confused spic” “traitor” by blacks. THEY ALSO LOVE TO BROWNWASH LATINOS. These folks I work with thought I was Italian or something. As soon as they found out I was Puerto Rican heritage, I got the “red Alert line”. “OH!! I thought you wuz whyte”! Why you republican? “Dey don’t want cha!!” “Everybody!! Lou here is PRican and Republican!!, WTF”.
Not only do they impose “blackness” upon me, But declare that I am Democrat property,basically.
I believe that eventually the Republican party will become the hispanic party. As Hispanics assimilate,and the Immigration issue becomes moot, I can’t see ourselves as Hispanics, who. Like to open Restaurantes, Furniture stores, Bakeries,Travel agencies, almacenes(small department stores) Mom and pop shops , will continue to vote for a Democrat party increasingly hostile to entrepreneurs,capitalism, business owners,especially large businesses.
An Independent Puerto Rico may succeed, because those who live off the Federal largesse will move to the states. The exodus of business owners to the states will create a “cuban” effect, where wealthy cubans established themselves along major retail avenues, Maybe Julio can correct me, but I’ve never seen a “little San Juan”. The way you see a Little Havana, Little Italy,Poland, Newark’s Portuguese Ironbound,where the majority of busineses are owned by those people. A Puerto Rican area like spanish Harlem, where Ricans are all poor, renters, and almost all busineses Cuban or Dominican owned, does not cut it.
Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless
“I believe that eventually the Republican party will become the hispanic party. As Hispanics assimilate,and the Immigration issue becomes moot” Iarroyo
Many polls do indicate Latinos are more aligned with the Republican conservative view where family and religion are concerned. Unfortunately the democrats have been successful at labeling Republicans as anti-immigrants. Republicans just want to enforce the laws that already exist to prevent undocumented immigrants from entering the U.S. I don’t want someone entering the U.S. illegally the same way I feel about someone breaking into my home. Is there really any difference between the two law breaking acts?
I understand its the ILLEGALS, but as you said, Democrats play with emotions to get their way. They purposely say anti Immigrant to scare hispanics into democratic fold. I find it astounding to see 89% of Black Americans voting for the old dixie slave party. The old Confederacy party! The Democrats replaced physical slavery with mental slavery thru fear, jealousy based on income differences, and especially unlimited government welfare programs. When Barack Obama sneaked language in the auto Bailout calling for repeal of “WORKFARE” He restored the old Welfare, where you sit, collect, more kids, more money. ..natural democrats!!! Of course Obama had the balls to lie and deny it!
Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless
You have to admit, the Democrats are a master at what they do. But then again when you use tax payer money to cater to people’s wants, then you are just buying votes. Auto workers didn’t think twice about taking the government handout at the expense of the rest of America. Obama used tax payer money to save their jobs and now they kneel and kiss his feet. Just more votes bought by the Obama machine with tax payer money.
I believe reading that GM attempted to pay off Uncle Sam early, to become 100% independently private again, Restore Pontiac (GM’s 3rd best in sales between GMC and Cadillac) unfairly killed despite being one of GM’s top 4 best brands, to save #5 buick (one of the bottom 4 of Gm’s 8 brands.
GM brands in vehicle sales .. and year…
1, Cheverolet. 1,100,000 2. GMC. 500,000 3. Pontiac. 400,000* * As part of the GM bailout, GM was not to report vehicle sales of Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer, or Saab. Pontiac sales were reported to the public as 200,000 as of its April termination announcement. Pontiac had new designs and experienced record sales in spring 2009. That’s why GM at first refused to kill off Pontiiac. Obama administration literally took over GM, Ousted chief Rick Wagoner, and put in his puppet Ed Wittacre. 4. Cadillac. 100,000 5. Buick. 50,000 (strong sales in China saved Buick)athough GM could have kept building Buicks in China, just as they sell Opels,Vauxhalls in Europe, and Holdens (australias version of Pontiac) in Australia. 6. Saturn, 20,000 7. Hummer 13,000 8. Saab 8,000. Nobody knew Saab was GM!! Horrible marketing, clearly GM’s forgotten brand.
Anyway GM tried to pay off all its Government loans in advance, Obama said NO WAY, were not letting go!!! GM is nationalized!!connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless
And this is Obama picking and choosing what companies will stay and what will go. Many people believe the same could have been achieved by going through the bankruptcy procedures without getting the government involved or using taxpayer money. It’s nice to hear some of the car companies did so well they could pay off the loan quicker. But know one knew at the time the car companies took the loan they would be able to pull through. They were willing to gamble with tax payer money simply because they did not want to lose their jobs even though millions of other Americans lost theirs. Over paid auto workers thanks to unions, vehicles that people did not want due to poor quality and bad gas mileage led to their failures.
My grandfather was going to give me an early 1960′s 3 cylinder SAAB years ago. Nice little car. Don’t know why I turned it down. It was needing some work but nothing major.
Lets all get together and ask Singapore how they found moderate success as an Island….but regardless of where we live PRicans are PRicans no matter where we live… what happens in PRicans affects PRicans here, and vice versa…regarding the comment you rarely see white Americans basing each other, I have seen worst, I witness 4 peaceful occupy wall st. white Americans get bashed by other Americans accusing them of been traitors to the point of been beat up and then telling to go to hell with democrats… Remember the Dixie chicks? .., .Politics in the US is very toxic.. I called it before, and I will continue calling it in the future.. there is a Millard Tydings in the making once again..not sure if this time around we would have a Vitor Marcoantonio to be a vocal representative here…but since we in a good topic.. what would be the ideal Governor that PR needs?
“I witness 4 peaceful occupy wall st. white Americans get bashed by other Americans accusing them of been traitors to the point of been beat up and then telling to go to hell with democrats…” david
Occupy Wall Streeters never clearly explained exactly what it was they stood for. Many did voice their disappointment with capitalism, and both political parties. When Democratic Representative Rangel tried to speak there he was booed! All parties were represented at the protest. I’m not sure where the traitor part comes in as whites have never been strongly associated with one party over another as minorities have.
As for best type of governor for PRico, how about starting with an honest governor. Fortuno and the so called PRican Republicans are not being honest about their true political beliefs. They are Democrats in Republican disguise. The only thing that keeps most voters here in the Republican party is because of the party’s statehood platform. I have no doubt that once PRico becomes a state, most everyone in the party will change to the Democratic party and make PRico a true blue state. Can you truly see PRicans rallying alongside Tea Party organizations?! Need I say more.
Well, to Fortuños credit, during the status debates, he did mention that at first, PR will take in a lot of Welfare and goverment Programs, but,as the per capita income incrreased, and more prospered, combined with the more conservative abortion, marriage, catholic Christian values. Of a large segment of the population, Republicans will gain a foothold and PR will be a swing state. Plus Puerto Ricans are likely to favor the party they see as favoring their entry to the union.
* so far, democrat platform refuses to specify what status they prefer, choosing to lick their finger in the wind, with “we support PR self determination”, while Republican platforms say “we support PR statehood”(except Iowa,lol), but Unless Repuublicans support statehood for PR, they will go extinct as a major party. The fix is in.
Democrats wave created racial/ethnic voting block they literally own. In 2010, Democrat majority House of representatives (speaker Nancy Pelosi) could not get the democrat majority to pass the PR democracy status act. The republican minority heavily voted for it, (for Fortuño,R- PNP,PR/and Pierluisi D-PNP,PR) . It passed the house. But once again, supermajority (then) democrat senate refused to look it up! THE MEDIA BLAMED THE REPUBLICANS!!! SO DID THE DEMS ON TV! So you see, MY GOP has no choice, but say yes! A republican rejection of statehood, will stick the fork in the GOP’s back and move the US to mexican style one party rule.
Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless
After PRico becomes a state and all of the hoopla dies down, that is when I believe many of the once Republican voters will jump ship and join the Democrats. It’s not Fortuno I’m concerned with as he has established himself as a Republican golden boy. It is the average voters who will be enticed by the handouts Democrats are so good at. And can you honestly say PRico has known a true conservative agenda which entails a smaller government and a large private industry? PRico has been a socialist experiment for far to many years and people have gotten comfortable with the many socialist programs that are available. And as long as people continue to fight against learning English here I don’t see why American companies would want to set up businesses here. Especially the more technical businesses that pay premium dollars. Sorry arroyo but I do not share your confidence. I predict PRico will become another solid blue state.
Sure, it may go blue, but there is nothing stopping a Puerto Rican islander from moving to a state for full government programs. What difference would it make if they got it in PR or say , my state NJ? I say this only because, when one considers the Mexican Americans and its legal and Illegals among them in the US 30,000,000 ( Puerto Rican Americans are only about 8,000,000 within US borders,) Logic may dictate that statehood for PR would cost nothing compared to say the 10-15 million Mexican Americans on Entitlement programs. Just a thought.
Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless
It’s not so much about social programs but rather the amount of electoral college votes to stack the house and senate along with the white house to be able to change the direction of america towards socialism. That would not be a good thing. That’s my concern about PRico becoming a strong blue state.
A similar concern was raised over Hawaii and Alaska. Oil rich Alaska was. Supposed to go Republican, and Hawaii Democrat. Its often been the opposite with a Republican Hawaii from time to time. Of course, Alaska eventually voted Republican,with Sarah Palin as an example.
Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless
Also keep in mind that statehood will bring a flood of non hispanic white and Black /native Americans . At least 100 to 200 thousand will move to open busineses,offer services, enjoy the new “carribean Hawaii”, many will move here in their retirement years, not to mention An equal amount of Retiring Puerto Ricans returning to the island now that they will receive full senior coverage and benefits. With an emphasis on land preservation and farming by both PRican and Anglos willing to plant sugarcane, coffe, corn,& other crops, a major construction boom will sweep over the main cities. Tall high rise condos will dot San Juan, Ponce, Mayaguez. San juan may begin to resemble Manhattan, Miami, chicago, or for better comparison, Honolulu,Hawaii. This construction boom will create thousands of Jobs, and with the permanen union secured under statehood, Major US and Latin ameerican firms will build skyscrapers in San Juan, Ponce to bridge the Anglo and Hispanic world. Look t all the corporate Skyscrapers in Honolulu. the investments will continue to arrive. Puerto Rico will be a swing state.
******Puerto Rico Virgin Islands*51* The Coqui State******
Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless
That is one of my arguments as well that PR would turn out to be a swing state. So if I was a politician whether Rep. Or Dem. it would be difficult to support statehood because it cannot guarantee that electoral vote would be primarily to one parties favor, it would go either way.
Regarding the protesters that were assaulted i do recall getting the feeling that the assailants were agent provocateurs so that would explain a lot.
I think the best and most honest thing that PNP party can do is informed PRicans that their is not much support for statehood here in the US. Just because you hear some politicians say the “support self determination” with statehood preference it does not translate to overwhelming support in the states and not to nitpick on PNP it applies for the other parties as well PPD,PIP, etc. The question would be can politicians in PR put aside the status at the moment to address the real issues in PR? or should the status be the main focus? I know that is PPR primary message is that exact thing of the status. To put aside tackle issues that is plaguing PR just crime, unemployment, etc. I also know in previous elections received more votes then PIP, so can it be that if they receive more votes this year their is a change amongst the voters? time will tell in few weeks. But I dont mind running for Gov. in near future.
Excellent post david. Way to much time and energy is focused on the status issue. People need jobs. I guess keeping everyone focused on status diverts the attention away from the real issues. So would you start your own party?
Technically speaking I would have to form my own party, the sad part is that I can have the best plan set for PR but since I will not be align with the “traditional” parties It would put me on a disadvantage from the start. This is why I think this years elections in PR will be a tell tale story because I strongly believe the landscape of PR politics will be so much different in the next 10 years if indeed you get more voters leaning towards PIP or PPR, you might get one of those propaganda that you get in the US, don’t vote for who you like but vote against the person who you least like which is silly but one way you get minorities to vote in the US, not much background is giving to the voter, I believe this concept wreaks dems all over it.I believe that PR voters will start to vote for non-tradional or not vote at all out of protest which I believe what happen in the last referendum that occur a month back to change the constitution. So much el pueblo can take.
On the other hand to make few more points as much as I support independence for PR I truly understand that the status issue is very destructive, when something drastic happens in the Island whether is a crime wave, boycotts,drug raids, etc. it seems that the enigma that is the status rear its ugly head. I am saying to myself enough is enough, we need a good plan and soon. With that said I tend to be asked a lot of times why their is not much support for Independence when it comes to election time. You can find many reasons, but one reason I believe is that the IND. movement has too many groups within the movement, starting from PIP, Hostoniano, Partido Nacionalista, etc. am I missing more? .. you always get an unclear message because you got groups that would be ok been an Ind. nation with US ties, others lean towards IND. with more latin american ties, you have those groups who preach the anti-imperial sentiment and it brings discord even those who support the movement. Does the status needs to be addressed? Yes!!!….Can it be set aside for once during our lifetime to tackle the main issues affecting PR and its sons and daughters that live all over the world? YES!!!
I would have love nothing more then to finally PR gets its respect it deserve as PRicans that we can administer ourselves to the point of dependency. I often cite how much different are Irish treated in an 80 year span, from the Irish been considered the lowest of all low in Europe and in US, to now consider hard working people who you can do business with.