It has been a busy start to the week for me, but I’m working on putting together another foreign policy Q & A about the situation in Honduras, which I hope to post within the next day or two. With the passing of Michael Jackson, the recent events in Iran, and now this coup in Honduras, I feel like it is the 80s all over again, except we now have a Democrat occupying the White House. The US response to this “coup” or whatever we want to officially call it at this point is rather interesting given our close relationship to the Honduran military. If in fact, the US declares this an official coup, aid to Honduras will be cut off, but we’ll explain more once I get the Q & A with an expert up.

In other news, Gustavo Arellano, who sometimes visits and comments on this blog, has a great post up on the OC Weekly’s blog about Rep. Loretta Sanchez’s demeanor with one of Richard Nixon’s descendants. Read about it here, and note how comfortable she is telling mentiras to young constituents.

Finally, a talented 23 year old DREAM Activist, Walter Lara, faces deportation to Argentina, the country he left as a three year old with his family. Lara grew up speaking English, attending public schools, and graduated Miami-Dade Community College with a 3.7 grade point average. You can learn more about Walter here, and help him out by signing a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Every year we import educated H1B visa workers, which can be a costly process. Why not tap in to the young talent already here with young people like Walter?

Out of the two Sanchez sisters in Congress, I tend to think that Rep. Linda Sanchez seems to be a little stronger on policy issues than her sister, Loretta. She took time out to introduce her new baby on the house floor a few weeks ago. Note how she thanks the doctors who cared for her and her new child. It is my hope that she is inspired by her maternity care to ensure that other Americans receive the same opportunities in producing healthy children. She has access to some of the best care taxpayer money can buy, whereas so many women are now using public health clinics, medicaid, or forgoing critical maternity services. Here is a link to some of her positions on health care. Sometimes a life changing event like birthing a child can give someone a completely different perspective or inspiration.

Yesterday a friend of mine sent me this article from the LA Times that speculates Loretta Sanchez may see an opening in the governor’s race which is now dominated by white males from the Bay Area on the Democratic side. I have also heard rumors from pajaritos that as of about a month ago, Rep. Sanchez was supposedly considering a run for the governor, but I don’t think its likely primarily because of the money issue. Newsom and Brown have already been running, active, and raising money. On the GOP side, Meg Whitman, former President and CEO of eBay, will prove to be a big fundraising powerhouse in addition to bringing her own wealth to the race.

Where does this leave Loretta Sanchez? She could ask her boy Hef to help her pony up some cash, but I don’t think she would be able to compete with the bigger names in the race. The California Democratic party is going to likely fall behind Jerry Brown, while Newsom is going to raise a lot of money from the SF and gay community elite. Again, Whitman will raise a lot of money in the Silicon Valley, San Diego, and Orange County (Loretta’s backyard). Plus, it is likely that Loretta Sanchez would eventually have to address her relationship with John (Jack) Einwechter. Finally, if you have heard Congresswoman Sanchez speak, it would become apparent that she would be the weakest debater, speaker, spokesperson for the state relative to a more intellectual Jerry Brown, a smooth talking Gavin Newsom, and a business-oriented Meg Whitman. However, I do think that if Congresswoman Sanchez tossed her hat into the ring, it would certainly add more flavor to the governor’s race and provide us plenty of laughs. In these tough times, a little levity can lift the spirits.

UPDATED: According to KPCC, Loretta Sanchez is not running for governor.

Nathan Gonzalez is an expert on Iran, and last week, I read his insightful and timely blog post that was featured on the front page of the Huffington Post about the most recent events unfolding in that country. Sometimes we are focused in our Latino politics realm that we don’t fully contemplate the events happening in other parts of the world, but one reason why I invited Nathan to participate on this blog is to bring some additional enlightenment, as Seneca has been able to do periodically chiming in about foreign policy matters.

Some people have suggested that Latinos are only interested in comprehensive immigration reform or domestic policy matters, but as Seneca has pointed out, we are sorely underrepresented in US foreign policy and aren’t readily perceived as players in that game. Hopefully, with the participation of scholars like Nathan Gonzalez in Middle East foreign policy, we can change that perception and learn more in the process. Check out some of the questions I was able to ask him, and feel free to add your own thoughts:

1. Why should Latinos here in the US be concerned with what is happening in Iran? Some in our community have argued that we should stay focused on the domestic issues at hand and foreign policy as it relates to the Americas.

Luckily, I have not heard anyone wonder aloud why we should care about what is happening in Iran. That would make as much sense as someone saying, “Why should I learn Spanish, I live in America!” However, something I have been asked is why I, as a Latino, spend so much time studying and commenting on Iran. But the beauty of your site, and the various efforts underway to increase Latino participation in politics and civil society, is that they provide avenues for Latinos to take part in the larger social fabric. You have Latino doctors, Latino lawyers, and now we’ll have a Latina Supreme Court justice. Why not have Latinos who study the Middle East?

2. You have been a proponent of engaging with Iran. Some have argued that engaging with the current regime would be like legitimizing the leadership, which is kind of like the arguments that have been tossed around for not engaging with Cuba or Venezuela. Do you think that the Obama administration should be more proactive in its approach with Iran?
 
I would be lying if I said that the current crackdown on protesters doesn’t complicate things politically for President Obama here at home. However, the Bush administration aligned our interests very closely to those of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran is the country with the second greatest influence over Iraq, after the United States. This means that for our troops to come home safely, we need to coordinate closely with the Islamic Republic. The same goes for another one of Iran’s neighbor, Afghanistan. We have no choice but to work with whoever is in power in Iran, and that is one of the unfortunate and seldom-told legacies of the Bush presidency.

[Read more →]

I don’t have much more to add to this other than the former head of California’s State and Consumer Services Agency Rosario Marin, who resigned earlier this year has been fined $5,700 by the Fair Political Practices Commission for accepting over $70,000 in illegal speaking fees while in office.

We blogged about her previous actions here. California has had a ban on public officials accepting speaking fees since 1990. Marin’s actions that prompted her resignation and subsequent fine involved conflict of interest. More specifically:

“Marin resigned from the administration last March after the Los Angeles Times reported that she had accepted speaking fees, including $15,000 from Pfizer and $13,500 from Bristol-Myers Squibb while the drug companies were lobbying her agency.

The FPPC said Marin reported collecting more than $30,000 in speaking fees in 2006 and again in 2007, and more than $10,000 for speeches in 2008.”

Rosario Marin obviously was comfortable being in the pocket of big pharma, but I thought I would try to figure out why she was paid the big bucks for public speaking engagements and found this YouTube. While this is only a snippet, I don’t find Marin’s message particularly compelling. I think that she uses many trite cliches in her speech. What do you think? Is she worthy of five figure speaking fees?