I've contributed to only one candidate in my long life, Eugene McCarthy, and if that is all that defines me, that is fine with me. I joined the YAF in college because I could be more effective in screwing them up than fighting them. I voted for Nixon the second time on the premise that 4 more years of him would help eradicate the Republicans for decades. The Dems screwed up my plan and ran him out of office before his term was up. I still make mistakes, but I'll stand by my McCarthy choice.

I don't think I've ever voted Democrat...or could. The hot issues for me are currently, and will likely stay, on the right.

There are those who blame the Nader voters for the rise of Bush and say vote Democratic this time and skip the third parties.
There is some merit to that, but a lot depends upon who the Dem candidate ends up being. So far, Hillary seems to be in and that is no happy thing for me, but the primary is very far away.
My speculations are just that. I can't vote anymore. Puerto Rico residents have no vote in presidential elections.
For decades no candidate for president has been of much interest to me. Yet if the 2000 race had been different, the country would be a lot better off now, so there is some sad lesson in that.

hispanicpundit-- What are those issues? Do tell.

"the hot issues for me are ... on the right."

i, too, am interested to hear you expand on this, hispanicpundit. that's an interesting way of putting it.

you are right, RC. they are a while away. i feel that hillary will be the chosen one, myself. and i can tell you now, i'm not feelin it. not a bit.

but as you say, we have some time still.

Nezua, I think you've put your finger on something for me with that "team" idea. I think there's a big difference between just voting for party X, maybe every one of their candidates, and Joining party X. Because you become a fan, you identify with them, you start to become a prawn.

Wait, I think I mean pawn.

I'm feeling that unless you're in a state that restricts voting in primaries, registering republican is the safest bet, then vote your conscience. I say that out of more than a little paranoia, sure, but just think if a zillion republicans surprise voted? Makes me smile to think about.

tom, perhaps you are but a prawn in the game. but what a wily one you are.

Here is a website that has a petition about quiting the party.

"I Quit This Party"

Maybe a misplaced comment, but we are loosing us. Mexico is now destroying indigenous communities, right how, today. The pinche army is running wild and Sr.Bush is going to fund 2 billion for more repression in Mexico and Mexicanos en los estados are subjected to more and more hate.

`
¡Viva!

yeah, it's a crazy world, mamá. you said it.;

i'm a leftist and getting more pissed off with dems each day.sure,nader became or always was a right-wing agent(and by the way,is joe lieberman with them 2) and he put the war profiters in office.makes u wonder about alot of the things but 2 back any candidate who doesn't have the balls 2 say that he'll get out of iraq and leave no one there doesn't deserve any so-called dems support.fascists control the country and no person of color,free thought is safe. sounds crazy(and that's what there counting on)but its true.

nader became or always was a right wing agent? wow. that raises my opinion of the Right!

Steve Fornier at Dem.org is trying to help organize people who have left the Democratic Party, but still want to be democrats. Quit the Party so we can bring about change.

interesante. i'll have to see what it's all about. just to see. i'm actually not sure what that even means. how does somebody be a democrat if they leave the party? doesn't being a "democrat" mean being a member "of the democratic party"? or does it just mean "someone who prefers to vote for democrats"? suddenly i'm not sure.

It depends what state you live in. I know in some states when you register to vote, you list the party you are affiliated with. I know here in TX we don't because we practice a party-blind system. ;)

Another way to quit the party is to stop funding them when they call for cash.

The intention of the Democratic National Committee and some members of the Republican National Committee is to pursue the "Hispanic" community as never before. They have been formulating this since the Census numbers have out and have been pitting Blacks against Latinos/as, especially in the Democratic Party. People better start opening their eyes and start realizing that both political groups recognize that minority politics in America is a zero-sum game where the gain of one minority group is the loss of another. Sadly, instead of opting out of the system, or exploring independent alternatives, Black and Latino leaders are poised to alternate with one another for the affections of political party bosses. This is just a classic example of how Black and Latino leaders devalue their electorates and their votes by making acceptance from the White establishment more important than true political empowerment and a responsiveness to issues.

Many immigrants also have to realize that when they come from Latin America and try to be White, White Americans and those in government will try to make them feel White but they won't ever receive the benefits of being White.

Er, some people {millions} from Latin America ARE white, very white.Think Xuxa. Plenty of others are black or brown. And a surprising number are Asian.
So I am not sure what XP is saying. Also XP ought to realize that in most of Latin America POC are not having any kind of perpetual happy holiday. Racism is very alive and unfortunately very well in most of Latin America. In fact, I would bet that overall, White privilege is much more rampant in the Central and Southern Americas than it is in the North. Any one else who has lived in both hemispheres care to comment? Maybe some POC can shed some light here.

True, however, when they migrate to this country, how they and others saw them over there will not be the same over here.

Here is the quick version.

1. With everything being equal, I trust markets (free market, capitalism, laissez-faire, etc) over government. Why? For several reasons,

A. Markets are more efficient - just look at capitalism vs. communism

B. Markets are more humane - just look at the human rights record of capitalist countries vs. communist countries

C. Markets are the prerequisite to political freedom - ever wonder why 'democratic socialism' has never existed? Because it can't, you need a free market to have political freedom.

D. Markets are tougher on racism - remember Plessy vs. Ferguson? How about Rosa Parks refusal to sit in the back of the bus? Well its interesting to note that in both cases the private enterprise involved, the railroad industry and the bus industry, sided against Jim Crow laws. Why? Because it doesn't matter who gives you a dollar; whether its a white, black, or brown person, its still a dollar. In other words, I trust the power of greed far more than politicians when it comes to the problems of racism. In a free market world racism is punished, whereas in a political world racism can be rewarded.

2. I tend to be socially conservative - I am against abortion and gay marriage (though okay with gays in general).

3. I am a HUGE believer in school vouchers and charter schools in general. In fact, if there is one single issue that can get me to vote Democrat it is this. School vouchers in the long term and charter schools in the short term have such an overwhelming opportunity of helping the inner cities and those that desperately need it that I would consider a Democrat over a Republican even if I disagreed with the Democrat and agreed with the Republican on everything else. But teachers unions have such a hold on Democrats that this is never likely to happen. All you will hear from Democrats on education is 'more money', 'more qualified teachers', and 'smaller classrooms' - all things that directly benefit the teachers unions but have little to no effect on the schools performance. Of course the schools in the inner cities continue to fail year after year, but Democrats keep getting elected - their real concern.

4. A deep hatred for burdensome regulations - an interesting fact of economics is that regulations, no matter how well intentioned, tend to harm the people at the lower end of the spectrum most. Think of the minimum wage laws, health insurance requirements, zoning laws, environmental laws (I've always said, "I'm too poor to be an environmentalist"), and so forth, and you will see that those that tend to be hurt the most are the lower class and/or less powerful. Whether it is minorities, the poor or small businesses it is always them that hurt first and the beneficiaries are the opposite. As Milton Friedman said, the #1 enemy of free markets has always been big business. Once you have power, you want to keep it and competition threatens that.

5. I am generally very pro-immigration and though this is a very important issue for me, I don't see the gap between the two parties on this issue all that big. Sure, the Democrats are better at PR than Republicans, but when it comes to actual voting the two seem to be generally the same. Certainly not so different that it overcomes all the objections I have above.

Thats pretty much it in a nutshell. Of course there are more areas I could cover and areas I could expand on but this tends to represent the heart of it all.

FYI: I commented...response is waiting to be approved. Probably too long.

hmmm... hispanicpundit, while i appreciate your words that your "okay with gays in general," i find it a little hard to square with your stance against gay marriage. would it be acceptable for one to say "i'm against Hispanic marriage, altho i'm okay with Hispanics in general?" i wouldn't think so.

An inappropriate analogy. A better one would be polygamy and gay marriage. I am against polygamy too but I am not against threesomes. ;-)

wow, pundit, you are very conservative.

if i want to marry more than one person, it is my own business.

brace yourselves! i am considering voting for elaine brown.

so hispanicpundit, you approve of how the free market as it is operating in Iraq right now? you favor the free market forces over government, then the place must look idyllic to you at the moment. i mean, let alone how 'the free market" applies to the countless campesinos in Mexico who are having their livelihood destroyed. but i would focus on the former for now. how do you feel about your ideas in the context of The Shock Doctrine, the book by the brilliant Ms. Klein, and her ideas about the new Disaster Capitalism?

Most free market economists, especially the most extreme ones, were against the Iraq war and continue to be. Wars tend to increase the size of government...as Milton Friedman said, wars are the friends of statists, not free markets.

As far as The Shock Doctrine goes, though I haven't read it, I do know that few economists - you know, those that actually study poverty and the ways to eliminate it - take it seriously. Its mainly a book for the populist and, frankly, the economic illiterate.

Here is an economists review of the book: http://www.nysun.com/article/63867?page_no=1

yes, i'd love to hear your thoughts upon reading it.

Why would I want to read a book that is economically illiterate and historically skewed? As Dani Rodrik, the Harvard economist wrote, Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine is a book that "needs to be trashed".

I can deal with economically one sided books. I have read books, for example, by both Milton Friedman and Alan Blinder. Reading debates between economists on the left and economists on the right is education. But reading Klein's would certainly not be. That would be a waste of time.

yes, I know the feeling.

I would suggest in following the advice of the person Dani Rodrik cites, Emmanuel, in his non-review of Naomi Klein' book. Yes, it is a non-review because all he could muster up is simple little -

.. even if you are a fellow traveler, more or less. That is the main point made by Emmanuel (via Trade Diversion) in relation to Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine, which is a truly bad book. I am glad somebody else thinks so, because I was pretty disheartened by the kid gloves with which Joe Stiglitz handled the book in his own review.

Unfortunately, there are some who feel it is a waste of time to do their own thinking and would rather adopt their views from others who think for them.

that was stylish.

I did not cite Rodrik as a reviewer of Kleins book. I cited Harvard economist Tyler Cowen (the first link).

Rodrik, btw, is considered in the economic community very left of center. In other words, even the economic left considers Kleins book garbage. It would be like reading Karl Marx for economic knowledge - a complete waste of time. Nonetheless Marx, and by association Klein, will continue to hold a large place in the economic instincts of many on the left nonetheless (which is again, why I could never see myself supporting the left).

Maybe after reading Klein I should read books about Santa Clause and the grinch? Should I make up my own mind there, too?

god you are an ass.

I didn't mean to come across as such. If so, I apologize. But my point is still the same. If the book has no economic merits and is almost pure fantasy, why read it? For entertainment purposes? I'd rather watch a movie.

Reading is fundamental!