Nationally, the election results show the Republican Party needs to fundamentally change the way the GOP engages with Hispanics, who overwhelmingly voted for Obama, especially the tone on immigration. According to a Pew Research polls, 62% of Hispanics are center-right ideologically, yet Mitt Romney received 23%, barely one third of that. Just eight years ago President Bush received over 40% of the Hispanic vote.

Mitt Romney received bad advice and focused messaging to Hispanics on the economy and largely ignored immigration. However, as Marco Rubio said “It’s very hard to make the economic argument to people who think you want to deport their grandmother.”

In 1994 California Gov. Pete Wilson jumped on the anti-illegal immigration Proposition 187 bandwagon to bolster his flagging reelection poll numbers. Proposition 187 drove legions of conservative Hispanics from the GOP, and the GOP has not been competitive in statewide races in California ever since.

Arizona has been the scene of some of the harshest rhetoric on immigration, and this week’s election results show many Arizonans, especially Hispanics, reject extremism on immigration, and while they want secure borders, they also want practical and humane solutions to our broken immigration system.

For a ‘deep red’ state, this week’s results show that extremism on immigration is hurting the Republican Party in Arizona. Normally Arizona’s U.S. Senate seats are ‘safe’ for Republicans because Arizona is a very conservative state, but Jeff Flake received a bare majority, just 50.01%, in his U.S. Senate race against a Democratic candidate with considerable personal baggage.

It is rare for Libertarian candidates anywhere to receive more than 1% of the vote, but in Arizona many Libertarian candidates received well over 1% in competitive three-way races, while the Libertarian presidential candidate received 1.29% in Arizona versus 0.9% nationally. Here are the Libertarian Party unofficial results in competitive three-way races in Arizona from the Arizona Secretary of State web site:

U.S. Senate 4.38%
Congressional District 1 – 5.88% (Republican Jonathon Paton lost to Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick, 48.49% – 45.54% due to Libertarian vote)
Congressional District 3 – 4.37%
Congressional District 4 – 3.7%
Congressional District 6 – 3.29%
Congressional District 9 – 6.35% (Republican Vernon Parker lost to Democrat Kyrsten Sinema, 47.81% – 45.71% due to Libertarian vote)
Legislative District 8 Senator – 4.9% (Republican Joe Ortiz lost to Democrat Barbara McGuire, 48.68% – 46.32% due to Libertarian vote)

Libertarian party values and positions are much closer to conservatives than liberals, and it is apparent many conservatives voted Libertarian in protest against the Arizona GOP’s heavy tilt into extremism in recent years. In Congressional districts one and nine, and senator from LD 8, it is apparent the Libertarian candidate siphoned enough votes away from the GOP candidate that the Democrat won the election!

It would be easy to attribute the Libertarian protest vote to other reasons, but in the 2010 election Libertarian Andrea Garcia won 9% of the vote against Russell Pearce, one of Arizona’s most notorious immigration extremists, the second highest ever for any Libertarian candidate in a competitive three-way race. Andrea Garcia was a GOP activist for many years, before moving to Mesa and finding an unwelcome climate in the GOP there, and switching to Libertarian.

Another Republican activist for many years, Blanca Guerra, left the GOP and ran as a Libertarian, in large measure due to the hostility she encountered. Blanca was one of Cafe Con Leche Republican’s founding members, and initially ran as a GOP candidate for CD 3 before leaving the GOP (and Cafe Con Leche Republicans) to run as a Libertarian. In reviewing election results for CD 3 over a period of years shows candidates with more extreme views on immigration lose by larger margins.

A welcome exception to Arizona’s trend towards purple is Bob Worsley’s election as Senator in LD 25. Bob Worsley is a conservative Mormon, who has been pastor in a predominately Hispanic Church, spent years overseas as a missionary in Latin America, and has sensible views on immigration and understands immigration and Hispanics. Not surprisingly, he won handily against his Democratic opponent, and also handily defeated Russell Pearce in the GOP primary.

It’s time for a wave of change in the Arizona GOP. Arizona is clearly turning purple, and a high percentage of Hispanics, Arizona’s fastest growing demographic is voting Democrat, despite generally conservative values. We’ve lately heard rumors that Russell Pearce may become Arizona’s next state chairman. In our opinion, electing Russell Pearce as Arizona GOP Chairman would be catastrophic for the GOP. If anything Pearce should step down as First Vice-Chair, as he is one of the most polarizing figures in Arizona politics today. It’s time to return the Arizona GOP to the Party of Lincoln, following Reagan’s “big tent” model rather than shrinking the GOP base into something more of a ‘pup tent.’

####

About Us – Cafe Con Leche Republicans is a national organization of Republicans who welcome “New Americans”, defined as immigrants and family of recent immigrants. Our mission is to make America and the GOP, more welcoming to “New Immigrants” through political activism, “in-reach” and education within the Republican Party, and lobbying government to adopt more immigrant friendly policies. We also seek to bring more conservative and moderate “New Americans” to the Republican Party. These efforts will strengthen the GOP, and lead more Republicans to embrace welcoming policies for immigrants and their families. We have members nationwide, with chapters in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and California. Our members and leadership are predominantly Hispanic, though we define ourselves by mission and guiding principles, not ethnicity, and we welcome all who share our goals. Our leadership is 100% Republican.

The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection —Federalist No.10

For Americans of all strata, individual freedoms are important.  Our freedoms assure us the right  to free speech, to practice our religion, to protect ourselves, to exercise our political rights by vote, and even to dissent and bring up grievances against the government.  Moreover, while some of our individual and states’ freedoms are “enumerated,” many of them are implicitly understood, and so they are not listed in these first 10 Amendments or the Bill of Rights.  However, just because they are not listed does not mean that they are unimportant. But they should not be looked upon in the distorted fashion that Libertarians make in that the founding fathers intended for individual’s rights to overcome the rights of others.  More importantly, nor should they be looked upon as the only important standard in our life.  Our natural rights in the Constitution emanated from an idea that our nation and laws were built around the notion that we are a community whose principle goal is unity and the preservation of the Union.

As Jefferson argued in the Declaration of Independence, our liberties are endowed to us by our creator so the saying goes.  Other liberties are stated specifically in the U.S. Constitution. However, Jefferson also drew from Rousseau, the idea that any form of community would “corrupt” the innocent  “noble savage” who roamed freely in a “total state of freedom.”  Essentially, for Jefferson, any religious principles or government that brings “man”  into a community would result into a corrupted society. Hence, Jefferson ardently opposed a centralized strong government that could violate man’s right to roam free or infringe on the rights of states.  But unlike the purist Rousseaunean views of Jefferson, Madison (like Locke) believed on the concepts of  a community, made up of religious groups, and a community of legal states—colonies, with a Constitution as the guiding document for unity, by a community and for a community, which in this case is the United States.  Therefore, the notion that Libertarians individual rights are to be more important than those of the United States, or the community, is a clear misinterpretation of our political and legal rights “enumerated” and ‘implied” in the Constitution.

But none of these liberties, enumerated and implied,” teach us the basics of how to treat each other nor do they speak to us about societal inclusion.  These are values that are taught to us by family, religion, social interaction.  Without these basics understandings and applications an individual is not able to be included in the everyday of life we call society.  These rules and regulations are stated already in the Constitution and are a guide as to how we are to include groups and people into our society.

Libertarians view things as a micro perception looking around to see only themselves and looking to protect only their rights.  While this is the epitome of what Libertarians believe, it should not be misconstrued to mean that is what a Constitutionalist really means. Constitutionalism means to protect the liberties a community ideal that will built a strong America.  A constitutionalist believes in those amendments that seek to protect the voice of America which includes the liberties attributed to the Bill of Rights.  A constitutionalist sees the fabric of America and does not seek to contain our freedoms so as to benefit the rights of just one because to do so would create a state of chaos.

For example, the 14^th Amendment and the “due process” clause seeks to protect and defend those liberties and rights that are not spelled out specifically.  Out of this specific clause, “due process” the Supreme Court was able to carve out important legislation that would protect the rights of Groups to have the ability to have a voice in our society.  It was not meant to replace the rights of others, but to include the rights and integrate those who were separated as not having rights in the United States.

Subsequently, a Constitutionalist believes in a small and cohesive government.  A Constitutionalist believes that those who are in the government should be guided by the U.S. Constitution.  This would include the right to free speech, the right to own property, the rights to vote and the right to practice religion.  Libertarians rarely talk about the practice of religion and instead speak to the “leave alone” policy for everyone to do their own practice.  Again, not only does this alienate groups of society it also begins to unravel the cohesive glue that the 14 amendment seeks to mend and that is to help integrate groups into the American society.

Libertarians seek to protect the rights of the individual at all cost.  A Constitutionalist will look toward the U.S. Constitution to develop the protection as it is in the best interest of the country.  So then why are Ron Paul supporters confused about whether he is a Libertarian or a Constitutionalist?  Ron Paul himself has stated that he is a Constitutionalist who believes that the U.S. should be governed by the Supreme Law of the land, the U.S. Constitution except that the individual liberties should not be infringed upon by the greater group.

A Libertarian and a Constitutionalist differ on basic and important principles.  A libertarian’s view does not include the rights of a Constitutionalist who acts on behalf of the best interest of America.  So before we back an individual and his philosophy, let’s listen to his terms and understand their definitions.

Originally published on Cafe Con Leche Republicans blog

You hear it all the time, Libertarians and Ron Paul people demanding people to pay attention to their new man for president, Gary Johnson. They argue that he is one of the most credible Libertarian candidates, because he not only served as a two term governor but he was the “King of Vetoes”. Moreover, his supporters tend to bring up the fact that Johnson won his elections in a Democrat majority state. At first glance, Johnson seems to boast an impressive track record, and besides this, he is probably the candidate with the best views on the issue of immigration reform.

While Johnson may talk the talk and may even have the policies to back it up, is it likely that he can do what needs to be done? Can Johnson actually win the election, eliminate the budget deficit and pass immigration reform?

The answer is doubtful. First, Governor Johnson is not running in New Mexico where the popular vote was the deciding factor. Instead, Governor Johnson is running to obtain 270 Electoral College votes. Furthermore, Johnson’s defenders forget that when Johnson won the 1994 and 1998 elections in New Mexico, he was running as the Republican candidate, and not as a Libertarian. If one takes these factors into consideration, Johnson’s chances of winning this election are slim to none.

But let’s say by some miracle he does win the election; will Governor Johnson be the best man for the job? Again this is doubtful. He is an ideologue and because of that, he won’t be able to pass legislation that will bring about the important reforms that our nation desperately needs. Washington does not work like New Mexico or any other state. The congress and the senate won’t play along with Mr. Veto, but instead they could simply ignore the President all together. For instance, the senate has refused to pass a budget during the last three years. If Harry Reid’s senate would not vote on bills with Obama as president, it is unlikely they will change if Johnson is inaugurated.

To pass major reform bills, we do not need a veto machine driven by ideology. We need legislators, both men and women, who will be brave and draw up these much needed reforms. These bills will be written by Democrats and Republicans. What we need in America is a president who is able to work with the leadership of both parties to get the major reform bills passed. Gary Johnson is not that man.

In conclusion, the President must have the ability to do more than just veto legislations and pass executive orders.  Rather, the President needs to be a leader who can take control and deal with the important issues of the day. Thus, for those who dream of immigration reform and balanced budgets, I would not look to Gary Johnson. He is not your man, besides the fact that it is impossible for him to win the Electoral College. Therefore, in November you can vote for Gary Johnson because he fits your ideological mold (knowing that he will lose), or you can sacrifice your pride and vote for a leader who can work across party lines to set our nation back on track.

Editors note: as with all blog postings that appear with a by-line, the opinions presented are the author’s and not necessarily the positions of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

Thomas Martin Salazar is an Arizona leader of the Café con Leche Republicans. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in History from Grand Canyon University, and is currently in working on obtaining his MDiv in Biblical Communication from Phoenix Seminary. Thomas has also served as the Grand Canyon University College Republicans Vice President and interim President (February 2007-April 2008), and as a Maricopa County Republican Precinct committeeman from August 2009 – August 2012.