« The Bionic Track Suit | Babalu Blog - Main Page | More Video from Cuba: »

If Cubans don't like big government, why did Ros-Lehtinen and Diaz-Balart vote AGAINST welfare reform back in the 1990's?

Exactly.

My fiancee is Jewish. Her family are all very liberal democrats. My Cuban family are all very conservative republicans. When we first started seeing each other years ago, concerns were brought up on both sides about the potential of conflict resulting from the extreme differences in political thought... until I broke it down to both sides of the family: the choice of our political affiliations stem from our cultural and historical backgrounds. Jews have witnessed and suffered the dangers of extreme right-wing philosophy (fascism), so they lean left. Cubans have witnessed and suffered the dangers of extreme left-wing philosophy (communism), so they lean right.

Kept in this context, it's hard to invalidate either side's arguments and softens disagreements as matters of perspective instead of simply right and wrong.

... but the bottom line, there *IS* a lot of blind loyalty involved. In 2006 America, it makes absolutely no sense for Jewish people to maintain their ardent loyalty to the Democrat party, and it makes less and less sense for Cubans to vote strictly GOP since a lot of those same Cubans are getting more from liberal Dems (welfare, WIC, EITC, etc.) than they are from the GOP. (Let's face it, Cubans are hardly social conservatives, whether we're talking about big government, abortion, etc.)

I have trouble seeing how a true conservative in the mold goldwater/regan can reconcile with the social/compasionate conservative of bush/falwell/robertson without lossing it integrety. These ideas seem at odds that's why i'm turned off by the current cast of republicans

ray

It's hard to prognosticate how the Cuban vote might change as a result of various snafu's by current Republicans. Some might weigh Democratic faults more heavily. I, for one, am a moderate Republican. I take each issue and candidate on an individual basis since the "R" or "D" after a politician's name doesn't mean the same these days.

But fundamentally, traditional Republican ideology is what Cubans identify with (for the reasons I - and PilotAl - stated earlier), even if current Republicans may not all embody that ideology.

Machete you: But fundamentally, traditional Republican ideology is what Cubans identify with (for the reasons I - and PilotAl - stated earlier), even if current Republicans may not all embody that ideology.

Can you name some traditional republican politicians that you indentify with as opposed to others that turn you off?

ray

I'm with ray on this one.

speaking as a fiscal conservative a la buckley and a big fan of free market capitalism, I can understand why cubans vote republican, but not why they would get excited about it. republicans today are not about small government. neither are democrats. in fact, no one is, and if you're casting your vote for fiscal reasons, you should be holding your nose either way.

republicans have increased the power of government (and the money it spends) incredibly during the last six years, and while I realize they haven't done it as much as the democrats want to, I still see no reason for genuine conservatives to be enthusiastic about anyone running for office right now.

And you wonder why Cuban-Americans vote Republicans...

Nikita Khrushchev once said that the United States was not going to be conquered from without but from WITHIN. The Democratic Party is doing its best to make this a reality!
http://www.progressivecaucuscdp.org/page/page/3469753.htm

I took the liberty to post excerpts of the article posted at freerepublic.com. Feel free to read the whole article at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/895421/posts

As taken from the 1998 archived statement by the Democratic Socialists of America:

“The Congressional Progressive Caucus of the US House of Representatives is made up of 58 members of the House. The Caucus works to advance economic and social justice through sponsoring legislation that reflects its purpose. The Caucus also works with a coalition of organizations, called the Progressive Challenge, to bring new life to the progressive voice in US politics.”

The Caucus’ members are ALSO members of the Democratic Socialists of America, "DSA," (National Director of the DSA: Frank Llewellyn). "After the Washington Times in November 1998 blew the whistle on the so-called 'Progressive' Caucus, action was taken to hide the true nature of the organization, and its membership list was eventually taken off the dsausa Web site."

The “Congressional Progressive Caucus” was FOUNDED in 1990, and they seek “to build a more just and humane society” a la Karl Marx no doubt.

(November 13, 2002, Newsmax: Exposed: Pelosi's Socialist Ties.) Fortunately, through the use of the "Wayback Machine" at www.archive.org, we can see the evidence which links the DSA to the PC: http://www.dsausa.org/pc/pc.members.html.

Well known “COMRADES” of this “Progressive Caucus” AKA “Socialist Caucus” are:

Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL)
Barbara Lee (CA)
Charles Rangel (NY)
Jose Serrano (NY)
First COMRADE Nancy Pelosi (CA) http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29612
Maxine Waters (CA)
http://www.sovereignty.net/center/socialists.htm

For whole list of members check http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/895421/posts

Supporting Organizations for the Congressional Progressive Caucus:
Institute for Policy Studies, The Nation Magazine, Moveon.org, National Priorities Project, Jobs with Justice Campaign, Peace Action, Americans for Democratic Action, and Progressive Democrats of America. Also co-sponsoring the kickoff event were the NAACP, ACLU, Progressive Majority, League of United Latin American Citizens, Rainbow/Push Coalition, National Council of La Raza, Hip Hop Caucus, Human Rights Campaign, Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs, and the Hip Hop Political Convention.

33139,

I don't know which specific bill you are referring to but some back-up to the allegation might be nice. As you know many bills are voted against, not because of the main content of the bill but because of riders that are attached. The fact is the Republicans put a 10 point plan in front of American voters in 1994 and they took over the House for the first time in 40+ years. All Clinton did was sign 7 of the 10 items into law and took the credit.

And that leads me to Ray's question. The Republican that really turns me on: Newt Gingrich.

The reason the president's approval ratings are so low isn't because of all the Democrats. It's because his own base is angry for the reasons mentioned above. Runaway spending, and in short caring too much about what their political enemies think about him. I've never seen a Republican bend over backward more to accommodate the Democrats and be hated by the Democrats more. Fuck them.

Newt in 2008.

conductor -- Ros-Lehtinen and Diaz-Balart voted against the welfare reform bill signed by Clinton. Not sure what part of that is in dispute.

As for Newt, keep in mind he was ousted by the GOP for not being conservative *enough,* although he appears to have learned from the errors of his ways.

***
It's a "Hobson's Choice"....

A pox on both their houses!
***

33139,

I don't know about your theories for Newt's ouster as speaker. I thought it had to do with the alleged ethics violations and his failed strategy of pursuing impeachment that pressured him out not his conservative bonafides. He was THE ARCHITECT of the contract with America.

As for why certain legislators vote the way they do, why don't you ask them. The fact is that it passed something like 300 to 100 and the vast majority of Republicans voted for it. If Democrats held those seats they probably would have voted against it too. So that's your argument? One bill. LOL.

conductor -- I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

First, Newt was replaced as Speaker after an uprising by conservative GOP House members. (Are you suggesting Newt is/was more conservative than Tom DeLay?)

Second, 3 seconds with Google will provide sufficient proof that Ros-Lehtinen and Diaz-Balart voted AGAINST welfare reform:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/welfare/stories/wf080196.htm

In fact, those two "conservatives" were the only GOP members of the House to vote against welfare reform.

conductor -- It looks like you edited your post while I was typing mine, so my response doesn't exactly fit with your current post.

Anyway, I wasn't just looking at "one bill." Someone mentioned above that Cubans are naturally conservative, but there's simply no real evidence of that. Cubans seem to LOVE big government, U.S. style; it's the failed Cuban big gov't they don't like. Why else would Ileana and Lincoln vote against welfare reform? Why else do Cubans lead the world in abortions-on-demand?

Yes I changed my post. I did some research. Honestly I didn't know that Diaz-Balart voted against it. I only knew that that that it passed with a a vast majority of the Republican vote. That my representative voted against is disappointing but I'd venture to guess that he votes the way I would on 98% of the issues. So what's your point, that ALL Cubans are for big government because two of our congresspersons voted against a particular bill? I don't get it.

If they had voted for it you'd be saying that it was cold blooded assault on the poor. Making laws is like making sausage. It's not always pretty. Maybe our delegation made a compromise with other legislators in exchange for votes on other matters they deemed more important. That happens you know. It's called compromise.

But Newt was pressured out because of the ethics violations and the mid-term seat losses in 98 (blamed on the impeachment fiasco) not because he was not liberal enough.

I don't follow the abortion line of thought. You are talking about Cubans in Cuba no? A communist country where life is not valued at all?

From Grolier's Encyclopedia Americana:

In 1978 Gingrich was elected to the House of Representatives after two unsuccessful campaigns. Between 1989 and 1995 he served as House minority whip, a position in which he developed a reputation as a political provocateur, known for his combative style and pursuit of conservative causes, including the fight against abortion, overhaul of the welfare system, and tax reductions.

The landslide Republican victory of the 1994 midterm elections elevated Gingrich to Speaker of the House, the first Republican in 40 years to hold this post. He proved to have a powerful grip on the chamber and successfully steered the Republican "Contract with America" through the House. He viewed himself as an opposition leader and a source of vision and ideas for defining the national agenda. Despite admitting that he had used money from tax-exempt foundations to finance partisan activities, Gingrich was narrowly reelected for a second term as Speaker in January 1997. Following the loss of several Republican seats in the November 1998 general election, and in the wake of increasing Republican dissatisfaction with his leadership, Gingrich promptly announced his retirement from Congress.

Some of Gingrich's critics, such as the maverick Republican senator John S. McCain of Arizona, charged that Gingrich's "scorched earth" approach to gaining control of the House led to years of partisan rancor among legislators on Capitol Hill. Gingrich's supporters argued that he helped bring the conservative agenda to the fore within the Republican party.

Not sure if you know what the responsibilities of the party whip are but I guarantee you someone without ideological backbone doesn't become party whip. Look at the comment about McCain in the article. McCain can hardly be described as a paragon of conservative virtue, he's basically a Democrat.

Here's a WaPo article for you:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/decision110898.htm

Look, I'm just saying that the idea most Cubans are conservatives, as mentioned above, is simply not supported by the facts. Cuban exiles seem to love big government, gov't programs, etc., etc., and people *in* Cuba are certainly not social conservatives by any stretch of the imagination. (Are you suggesting Cuban women, who lead the Western Hemisphere in seeking abortions, suddenly become anti-abortion after they cross the Fla. Straits?)

The point is, if/when Cuba changes, there could be a radical realignment of the Cuban exile vote in U.S. politics since social issues will likely dominate the discussion rather than the anti-communist, anti-Fidel, pro-embargo issues that currently tie most exiles to the GOP.

33139, perhaps you should re read the post. PilotAl makes a difference and draws a political ideology line. He speaks of the Cubans that left between the 50's and 70's. The ones that were politically motivated rather than economically motivated.

Today's Cuban exiles are more complex, its a mixture of politics and economics. It's a different mindset and a different experience. Most of them are seeking a better life, not freedom exclusively. They come from a giant failed welfare system; it is what they are used to.

Ideologically speaking you have to draw a line - different lives, different experiences lead to different beliefs.

Right, but that doesn't change my point: When Cuba changes, a massive realignment in the Cuban exile vote could take place in U.S. politics, *especially* since so many recent arrivals lean a lot more to the left than their predecessors. (A lot of post-1990 arrivals are unabashedly liberal, and I suspect a lot more are "in the closet" politically.)

Interesting thread, so you see newt is a traditional republican, i have no major issues with newt.

what about republicans like giuliani or arnold california do this guys pass the traditional test? they seem closer to my why of thinking.

Is anybody familiar with the republican liberty caucus, i just came accross their web-site, they seem to endorse conservative/liberterian ideas within the republican party. http://www.rlc.org/

ray

I think guys like Giuliani and Arnold are more conservative than they let on because of their liberal constituencies. But Arnold can't run for president and Giuliani will never be nominated because he has consistently said he's pro choice. I think they are both pragmatists. What I want is a Ronald Reagan type that can articulate a conservative vision well. Yes Newt has a lot of negatives but so did Reagan. Almost everyone remembers him fondly now but at the time he was hated by many. For my money the only guy with the gonad to stand up there and be a voice for common sense conservatism is Newt. Nobody else in the ranks of the Republicans floats my boat.

I think we've been hearing about that massive realignment since 1992 and it just hasn't materialized. It turns out that Cubans don't like high taxes and are conservative. At least the ones that vote, which by the way are the ones that are least likely to return to Cuba.

Henry, i agree they are pragmatists as opposed to newst who is more rigid in his views. Newt is more polarizing. Arnold or Giuliani have a more live and let live approach to social issues like gay marriage, abortion etc. Arnold here in california had to be pragmatic to survive with a state legislature that mostly left-wing democratic. He follows the same footseps that ronald reagan had to take when he was a governor here. That's why i like pragamatists they now how to survice and get things done.

Are you familiar with Barry Goldwater, the father of the consrvative movement, if you read his book the conscience of a conservative you'll see that this guys are more inline with his original conservative ideas. Barry was open to gays in the military, pro-choice etc...

ray

I don't there could have been a more polarizing figure in California than Reagan. At least the accounts that I've read. He didn't run on a watered down "compassionate conservatism" platform (which by the way is a misnomer that casts traditional conservatives in an unfairly negative light). He had a very clear and defined conservative ideology. Once in power, he was able to compromise and work with his opponents. Gingrich did this as well and if you read the articles above you'll see that's what got him into hot water with some in his party that think he caved to Clinton on the governement shut down and other issues. The others in the party were pissed because of what you say that he was too polarizing (mainly because of impeachment). In short, he was getting it from both ends of the spectrum within his party. Either way 6 years is a long time in the politics game. And Giuliani will never get the nomination.

Now for 33139, it just so happens that I have a passing (email-based) acquaintance with a Lincoln Diaz-Balart staffer. And he sent me the official responses that Congressman Diaz-Balart sent out in response to questions about his nea vote on Welfare reform. He basically said he was against it because it denied benefits to legal non-citizen residents.

Since there are a lot of Cuban legal non-citizen residents in his district (and Ros-Lehtinen's as well) it doesn't strike me as an unreasonable objection. I hardly think that means that he's for big government. Here's the official response in the original Spanish.

Yo vote en contra del proyecto de ley sobre el "welfare". Desafortunadamente, la legislación le sigue negando beneficios a inmigrantes legales en Estados Unidos.

El proyecto de ley contiene importante flexibilidad para los Estados sobre el crucial tema del "welfare", pero yo no puedo apoyar la negación de beneficios a personas simplemente porque no son ciudadanos aunque sean residentes legales de Estados Unidos y hayan cumplido con todas nuestras leyes.

Henry: here's a link to some excerpts from that book is a short read

http://www.heritage.org/Research/features/PresidentsEssay/PresEssay2004.pdf

let me know your thoughts on it if you read it. By the way reagan give the speach for barry goldwater in the republican convention in 1964

ray

There are millions of legal non-citizens of all nationalities, but that didn't stop a single other Republican from voting for welfare reform.

Obviously, Ileana and Lincoln thought they would face backlash at home if they voted for welfare reform, so they voted against it. Simple as that.

"Simple as that" because you want it to be. Name me a Republican congressperson that has more legal resident noncitizens than those two (and now Mario) in their districts. That's because immigrants tend to vote Democrat which brings us back to why Cubans vote Republican and why it galls the libs so much.

No it's not "simple as that."

Too bad you can't accept truths for what they are.

And it's too bad you can't seem to stick to one side of the argument. Either Cubans are conservatives, as you keep saying, or Cubans like big government and demand their representatives vote accordingly. Can't have it both ways.

Ok 33139, or is it SMEB?

And by the way: *Non-citizens* don't vote, or at least they're not supposed to, so the ratio of non-citizens in Ileana's district or Lincoln's district shouldn't have anything to do with how those two cast their votes in Congress.

Representatives represent everyone in their district whether they are voters or not. You would know that if you weren't flying off to Cuba every 6 months to go hang with jineteras SMEB.

But if Cubans are so conservative, why would they be demanding their rep's vote for big government programs like welfare?

Equal treatment for people that work and pay taxes is not the same as being in favor of big government, SMEB. You would know that if you could rub two brain cells together.

For someone so confident of your position, you seem to resort to childish name-calling rather quickly. (What the hell is a "SMEB"?)

Anyway, why would people who "work and pay taxes" need welfare?

33139,

They voted that way so that they can tell these future voters that they were looking out for them. The thing is that when most of these people really start to work and see how much money is deducted for taxes and they no longer qualify for the the handouts...they will probably vote with their own pocketbooks.

The same thing will happen in Cuba. When people start to get taxed for their work, instead of getting stuff from the government...they may not be as "liberal" as they are now. It's easy to be "liberal" with someone else's money.

I hope Cubans always vote Republican but I simply do not believe it will be the case if/when things change in Cuba.

There's just too much of a difference between the exiles of the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's compared to the new wave of exiles from 1980 to the present.

The early exiles came from a Cuba that had a strong work ethic, while the more recent exiles are from an era where work is not rewarded in the least and, thus, there's more of a "what can I get from the government?" mentality. (Plus, there's a lot more apathy among post-1980 exiles; seems like they vote in much smaller numbers.)

Henry, SMEB and 33139 are one and the same? Hmmm. I'll check the IP addresses.

33139: I think you are stereotyping or profiling exiles into one category or another. I can't see where that's true. Most people that i know vote for the candidate that speaks to their priorities.

ray

Huh? Cubans have been consistently voting GOP for over 30 years. That's hardly an unfair "stereotype."

I'm simply suggesting that stereotype could come crashing down for the GOP if/when communism falls in Cuba.

So are you saying that because one is cuban one votes GOP? I don't think so. I know many cuban americans that vote for democrats or idependent. You are trying to fit us all into a tight little box.

ray

No, I'm saying Cubans *generally* vote GOP, which has been a known truth for 30 years.

Ok, i can see that. Also that depends on the area of country you live on. If you live in south florida that would probably be generally true, for other parts of the country that generalization may not hold.

33139,

I know plenty of Cubans who are in their early 30's and have been here less than 10 years who work for themselves even though they were raised in the communist system.

When they first arrive they get help from the government...but later...they go to work just like everybody else.

From what I hear about pre-castro Cuba...they were very liberal with regards to labor laws...but have been traditionaly conservative in most other areas.

mavi -- I agree, but the early exiles were mostly successful when they left Cuba, whereas there's a steep adjustment period for most of the newer exiles who need to build a life from the ground up. Life in So. Fla. has also gotten so expensive a lot of exiles are struggling just to keep their heads above water. (There was a recent Herald story about this.)

My understanding is that most of the early exiles were *much* more socially conservative than the later waves. This is a big factor in why I believe it might only take a couple post-Castro elections for the voter dynamics to shift. (Actually, it could have started by now if the Dems had made any effort to connect with more recent Cuban exiles.)

Democrats like Joe Garcia have been trying to sell the myth of the shifting tide toward the Democrats since at least 1992. A myth that has been disproved in each and every election since.

A recent Bendixen poll (a Democrat by the way) says that of registered Cuban-American voters in South Florida 72% are Republican, 17% are independent and 11% are Democrat. Ouch. More independents than Democrats.

Among the more recent arrivals (the Bendixen poll only split it by before or after 1980) the situation isn't much better. 61% Republican, 21% independent, and 13% Democrat.

And factor in the fact that 92% of Cubans that arrived before 1980 are registered to vote while only 43% of arrivals after are and it looks like the Dems are going to need more than a couple of election cycles to make any inroads.

But what pisses me off about this whole debate is the insinuation that Cubans vote Republican because they are stupidly following some old trend. To anyone that thinks that I say FUCK YOU. If anyone blindly follows a party it's all the other minority groups (that hate Cubans by the way).

No, the Cubans vote Republican because Democrats have shown in their words and in their deeds that their interests are not the same as those of Cuban-Americans.

That's the true scoop.

But trends can flip overnight in politics. My understanding is that something like 80% of Cubans considered themselves Dems back in the 1960's, before a certain event sent them scrambling to the GOP.

The fact remains that one issue, and one issue alone, is responsible for about 90% of any given Cuban's loyalty to the GOP, and wholesale change in Cuba could drastically alter the voting landscape. (Likewise, if a charismatic Cuban-American Democrat came out of the woodwork and inspired some of the younger exiles to register and vote, the numbers could shift from that as well.)

"Charismatic Cuban-American Democrat." Where's Raul Martinez when you need 'im...

33139,

Do you have a source for your statement that 80% of C-A's were Dems in the 60s before the event that sent them to the Rep party (the Bay of Pigs fiasco)?

That statistic is highly doubtful since the early 60s was the very beginning of the exile movement and it's highly unlikely that many exiles would have been eligible to vote.

Seriously, if you can find a source, please post it.

If 33139 isn't SMEB then he's Joe Garcia. ROFL!

As referenced in "Unvanquished" by Enrique Encinosa, quoting other sources, "in 1971 there were approximately 20,000 registered Cuban-american voters in Dade County." There is no party affilitation breakdown offered.

One would think that in 1962-63 there were far fewer Cuban-american voters (in Dade and elsewhere), as the vast majority of Cuban-americans would not have been citizens at that time.

He said "considered themselves dems", not "voted dem". Big diff.

33139
Not all of the recently arrived Cubans are liberal as you say. I came 6 years ago, I am part of that young people like you say, and believe me I am a conservative all the way. When you say things about Cubans in Cuba you should either post references or be aware that in Cuba it is very difficult to tell how everyone thinks.
When communism falls in Cuba, I would predict Cubans from Cuba to vote in a conservative way.
My reason for this is that liberals tend to use the "it's all for the common good" rhetoric and I doubt cubans will be fooled into that one again. Also most Democrats and liberals tend to lean toward communism, socialism and all that BS. See recent example in Charles Rangel.
It is not just one issue, it is the fact that over and over Democrats proove that they lean to socialism so they fail to combat communism and for that matter they fail to combat terrorism as well. It's not just Kennedy's failure, it is Jimmy Carter's failures and his ridiculous visit with Castro, it is Clinton's absurd wet foot-dry foot. But more than that it is the fact that it was Ronald Reagan's policies, RIP, and Bush father's continuation of these policies what took down the Soviet Union and gave freedom to all the countries under soviet rule.
Cubans want freedom, that is individual freedoms which they have not been allowed to have, and they do not want communism, thus, they will lean to the conservative platform in my opinion.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: