Rosario Marin has been vocally opposed to Donald Trump for some time, even going on CNN during the Republican National Convention and declaring, “I will not vote for this little orange man.” But it’s still noteworthy that she’s penned an opinion piece for Univision explaining that she’s endorsing Hillary Clinton because “my party and its standard-bearer leave me no choice.”
Marin served as the Treasurer of the United States in the administration of George W. Bush, so she was the first Mexican-American to have her name on our currency.
I am going to quote from her Wikipedia biography here just so you can get a sense of how unlikely it was that she’d rise to become the United States Treasurer:
Marin was born Rosario Spindola in Mexico City, Mexico. Her father Mariano, a worker in a label-making factory in California, brought his family to the United States in 1972 on visas provided by his employer. The move was initially resisted by Marin due to her upcoming quinceañera and her fear of leaving behind her customs and traditions. Marin’s family settled in Huntington Park, California where her father obtained work as a janitor and her mother as a seamstress. They returned briefly to their old home in Mexico to celebrate a “small fiesta” in her honor.
Her poor command of English was another reason that Marin had resisted coming to the U.S. In high school, she was given an IQ test on which she scored a 27 out of 100 and was subsequently labelled as mentally disabled. This low score inspired Marin to work hard to learn the language which she accomplished in part by listening to songs on the radio and repeating the words. By 1976, she was in the top 20 out of a class of 500 and graduated with honors.
Marin’s family had initially wanted her to forgo any further education and get a job in order to help out the family financially as well as help her mother care for her siblings. Marin compromised by working during the day and attending East Los Angeles College at night. After graduating in 1980, she continued to take night classes at the Los Angeles campus of the California State University (CSULA). Marin graduated from CSULA in 1983 with a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration.
As far as I know her seamstress mother didn’t deal any drugs and her janitor father never murdered anyone, and she clearly did not appreciate Donald Trump’s suggestion that they were the kind of undesirable people that the Mexican government would dump on us just to cause us problems.
“I will stand up for my community against the menace of a tyrannical presidency that does not value the countless contributions of immigrants,” Marin writes. “There is too much at stake both domestically and abroad to have a thoughtless individual at the helm of the most important economy in the world.”
“I have come to the devastatingly painful realization that my party right now doesn’t want my vote nor that of my community,” she said.
Given her up-by-her-bootstraps personal story, other Latino Republicans (who are still with Trump) are reluctant to criticize her despite the fact that she’s now gone beyond opposing Trump to actually endorsing his Democratic opponent. She has a lot of credibility, which is why this is an especially valuable endorsement.
I have been a Republican since I became a US Citizen in 1984 and was proud to vote for Ronald Reagan’s reelection. Eventually, I was given the incredible honor to be the United States Treasurer, the first Mexican-born to hold this title.
I have been a loyal, trusted and fiery fighter for every Republican presidential candidate. I have been a delegate to the previous five Republican conventions. But since July 2015, when a certain candidate, upon entering the political arena, showed his contempt for Mexican immigrants by stating they were drug dealers, rapists and murderers, I have voiced my disgust and have warned one and all of the perilous threat he was to our party, our nation and the world.
She also understands that this is a binary choice. Either Clinton will be our next president or Donald Trump will be, and that’s a no-brainer:
I have disagreed with and criticized Hillary Clinton’s positions, but I have come to the conclusion that she would be a far better president than the Republican candidate could ever be. She understands that words spoken from the White House have consequences, that sarcasm is not a strategy when dealing with delicate world situations, that our friends and foes listen to every word spoken by our president and react accordingly.
Because the piece is appearing in Univision, its impact may not be well understood by consumers of the Anglo press, but it’s going to give permission to a lot of people to drop the Republican Party (at least, for now) and get on the Clinton bandwagon.
Artemio Muniz, a Texas Republican who joined Marin at the press conferences denouncing Trump, said Marin endorsing a Democrat is the end of an era.
“I love Rosario with all my heart,” he said. “I hate to see part of the George W. Bush legacy crumble like that, the last brick of the Bush legacy when it comes to Hispanic outreach.”
This is what collapse looks like.
Single party government and it’s attendant corruption are what destroyed the Soviet Union.
Well, that and the fact that they were dialectical materialism morons.
You seem disappointed.
Quite the opposite.
Well, I will start being concerned about one-party rule when the D party controls the HoR, the S, the SCOTUS, and the POTUS. We are not near that moment. The R party set the table with stupid rules about primaries and by having the huge number running. Now they are stuck with DT. I have no idea how they will recover from this, but it won’t happen until the DT Hindenburg goes down in flames over New Jersey.
I’ll be concerned when the Dems control the government and misuse that power. If they are as corrupt as the far left likes to believe, that won’t take long, but damn, it sure would be nice to give them a shot.
I hear that Secretary Marin’s parents came to the United States on phony visas and stole seamstress & janitor jobs from hard working native-born Americans.
“… proud to vote for Ronald Reagan’s reelection … I have been a loyal, trusted and fiery fighter for every Republican presidential candidate.”
You keep talking about the the collapse of the Republicans, Boo, without ever analyzing the other side of the equation. Without really acknowledging that there is one.
OT: Can anyone suggest a good read about the state of Obamacare in the wake of the Aetna withdrawal? I can’t tell what it means, if anything.
Obamacare: let’s get a Dem Congress and fix it. Whether that be through improving subsidies, a public option, both, Medicare for all, and/or regulating drug prices. The conversation can be had, but won’t go anywhere, unless the House changes, or comes very close to changing.
The Bitch-All-the-Time Left can be one of our country’s biggest impediments to getting things done.
So we’re going to finally try to get a Dem Congress that fixes it! Sounds good to me.
The best constant and up to date analysts of the Afordable Care Act that I read regularly is by Richard Mayhew on Balloon Juice.
.
Boy, do I agree with this recommendation. Mayhew works in the insurance industry, and brings a constant stream of worthwhile, balanced analyses of the latest ACA news.
Sorry, it was a Dem Congress that broke it because of the adamant opposition to even a vote on single payer from the Dem President.
saw an interesting piece over at Kos on it.
better [piece https:/www.balloon-juice.com/2016/08/17/aetna-cynicism-and-pennsylvania]
Very interesting, but I’m still not sure what it means. That is, obviously Aetna is trying to game the system to maximize profits. That’s a given. Everyone expected that. It’s what insurance companies do. But what does it means for the system as a whole?
From what I’ve read, in places like California, where I am at, it won’t mean much. We’ve got a political regime that is vested in seeing the law work–very important–and a decent sized pool of insurers in many areas. In Red States, that haven’t expanded Medicaid, and are doing everything they can to thwart the law, it will have a larger impact on consumers.
And we have Kaiser.
.
there’s a Vox article, I don’t have it handy but it sounds like it’s going to hurt rural people more than anything because they had few choices to begin with
I’ve decided that the “other side of the equation” has replaced the Balanced Budget Amendment as the dumbest idea ever.
Fucking equations, how do they work?
What’s the “other side of the equation”?
That in a two-party system, dramatic (or even traumatic) changes to one party necessarily cause changes to the other.
However, Boo–and many others–dismiss that out of hand, because ha-ha-ha shut up you leftie hater.
Okay, Steggles, just for you, I’ll share some back of the envelope research I’ve been doing on how winning the Senate might work out for a progressive agenda.
Below, I’m going to show you who will be the likely chairman of the various Senate committees, and even give you a couple of different scenarios.
Agriculture (also Food Stamps): Debbie Stabenow, unless Sanders opts to chair HELP instead of Budget. Then Sherrod Brown will chair Agriculture.
Appropriations: Patty Murry, unless Leahy decides he doesn’t want to stay on at Judiciary.
Banking: Sherrod Brown, unless Stabenow takes Budget and he opts for Agriculture, then Jon Tester chairs Banking.
Budget: Bernie Sanders, unless he’d rather chair HELP. Then Stabenow.
Commerce: Bill Nelson
Energy: Maria Cantwell
Environment: Tom Carper unless he wants to stay at Homeland Security. Then Sheldon Whitehouse.
Finance: Ron Wyden
Foreign Affairs: Ben Cardin
HELP: It’s Bernie’s if he wants it, otherwise it’s Bob Casey’s.
Homeland Sec: Tom Carper unless he wants Environment, then it’s Claire McCaskill’s.
Judiciary: Patrick Leahy unless he wants Appropriations, then Feinstein or Durbin.
Rules: Probably Feinstein or Durbin
Small Business: Jeanne Shaheen
Veteran’s Affairs: Richard Blumenthal
Indian Affairs: Jon Tester, unless he gets Banking. Then Tom Udall.
Ethics: Chris Coons
Intelligence: probably Mark Warner, but maybe Feinstein will chair again.
Aging: Claire McCaskill unless she gets Homeland, then Casey or Whitehouse of Gillibrand.
Yes, I know, a lot of scenarios that more or less good for progressives. Probably would rather have Sherrod at Banking than Tester and Sanders has a hard choice between chairing a Budget Committee that produces non-binding priorities and chairing the committee overseeing health, labor and education.
I can go more granular than this even, Mazie Hirono stands to oversee our Navy and Gillibrand our military personnel. Udall will probably handle appropriations for the EPA and Interior Depts, and Chris Murphy our diplomatic corps. Jack Reed will appropriate for Depts. of Education, Labor and H&HS.
Cory Booker will probably get a subchair on Commerce overseeing our Coast Guard and coastal waters.
If we were to win the House, you’d be truly amazed at the progressives standing to write our legislation.
You’d see John Yarmuth chairing Budget, Bobby Scott on Education, Frank Pallone on Energy and Commerce (including Gene Green on Health), Maxine Waters on Finance, Conyers back at Judiciary, Raúl M. Grijalva on Natural Resources, Eddie Bernice Johnson on Science, Nydia M. Velázquez on Small Business, and Bike-Caucus chair Peter A. DeFazio on Transportation.
These are the people who are empowered when Clinton wins the votes of enough Republicans to coattail the Dems back into congressional power.
If you think it will change the Democratic Party, you’re right. It will lead to the most progressive Congress in history.
Thank you!!! Can’t wait to see the front of the envelope, but that’s huge. (And I’ll donate generously … if I ever sell another friggin’ book …)
So if I’m a Republican and I endorse and vote for Clinton, and the Senate committees turn out like that … what do I do? I mean, what sort of longer-term fallout is there? It just strikes me that we’re at a moment of political party ‘sorting,’ and that it’s a really under-addressed subject. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe there is no sorting, and what’ll happen is … I don’t know.
I can understanding thinking that the Republican party will bounce back in a few years, like nothing happened, and the Dems will remain what we are. And I can understand thinking that the Republicans will collapse. But I can’t understand thinking that they”ll collapse, and we’ll stay the same.
I think Booman posting last year or so a study that shows that minority groups (that join a different group) tend to take on the characteristics of the group that they joined. There wasn’t any evidence that the group changed positions to accommodate those new members.
At least that’s how I remembered it, so we have a real chance to persuade a group of people we never could have reached before.
“Raúl M. Grijalva on Natural Resources”.
That Hillary Clinton is going to get too many votes, and that’s bad for progressives because who wants huge congressional majorities?
I thought it was that the Democratic Party was crashing and burning exactly like the Republicans.
.
By definition, the other side of the equation would be equal, so there’s be no need to see it.
Which explains Einstein’s famous equation, E.
Just FYI, she was the Treasurer (a mostly ceremonial post), not Secretary of the Treasury.
I’ve heard Rosario Marin’s vocal oppo to that little orange man (ha ha).
I can’t agree w/Marin about the Republican Admin’s that she venerates, but it’s true that W was certainly more open-minded about immigration and the Latino/a communities than most of the rest of the R-Team. Marin’s life story is inspirational, and she deserves many kudos for her accomplishments.
Her outspoken support of Clinton is very interesting.
Well the R-Team has been nothing but dumb, especially in re to the Latino/a communities. It’s not a secret that the “average” Latino/a trends more conservative than liberal. It’s a broad generalization, but most Latino/a’s are very very family oriented; many oppose abortion (not a viewpoint I enjoy but there you have it); and tend to be sincerely religious (mostly RC).
Trump has bascially sh*t all over not just Mexican Americans but all of Latino/a descent. Sure it riled up his White Supremacist fans, but they are a dwindling minority – especially those who’ll back what Trump’s doing and how he’s behaving.
Not surprised by Marin but find it interesting. Thanks.
Really not the case. More dependant on country of ancestry and economic status as well as age.
Age, definitely. I live in CA, so mostly mingle with Americans of Mexican descent. What I wrote is pretty true for that cohort. The younger generation is probably a bit more open-minded about issues like abortion, but not all that much. This anecdotal, of course.
The close family ties, though?? Definitely. Very family oriented.
Hm. I’m awaiting the rush of commenters condemning Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party for “accepting” an endorsement of Clinton’s candidacy from a Republican. This sort of thing happens whenever some Old GOP White Guy announces he’s supporting Clinton instead of Trump.
That’s funny, because I was waiting for the rush of commenters embracing the support of right-wingers (which makes sense!) without entertaining the possibility that perhaps a deluge of politically-powerful, conservative supporters might affect a party’s policies in some way or another (which does not).
I think we’re more or less thinking along the same lines when the snark is left behind. I also think it’s unlikely that when, say, some lifelong Republican national-security type decides to support Hillary Clinton that s/he has permanently left the GOP behind. These endorsements are one-off affairs.
You can’t have a pattern until it happens the first time.
.
Is this is a ‘collapse’ of the Republican Party, or just a pothole?
If it’s a pothole, then I largely agree: we’ll see many committed Republicans who, say, strongly supported McCain/Palin, endorse Clinton while continuing to identify as Republicans. They’re betting that after Trump’s humiliation, they’ll be in a position of increased power in the new, post-Trump Republican Party. They’re largely giving one-off endorsements.
After which, of course they will perfectly encapsulate ‘mainstream bipartisan agreement’ to the Corporate Media, forevermore, amen. Conservative firebrands will be our new avatars of principled moderation: Erick Erickson and Bill Kristol and whoever else.
However. Can you imagine any utility for the Clinton Administration in working with these people? Perhaps for political cover? Perhaps to bring them more permanently into the Democratic Party? Perhaps to deprive the Republican Party of their services? Perhaps because there are a few limited areas of overlapping agreement? If she asks some of them to serve, will they all refuse? If some of them do serve, does that affect the Dem party in any way?
And that’s all if this is a pothole. If it’s a true collapse, your lifelong Republican national-security types will have nowhere else to go. That’s not a one-off affair, it’s a marriage.
What will happen will depend on what happens in the Republican party after Trump’s expected loss. As I see it there are three possibilities.
If 1) these conservatives have nowhere to go. They’ll probably switch to being Blue Dog Democrats and try to influence the party from there. Based on how the doggies have done lately, I don’t think they’ll have much luck.
I honestly don’t think they’ll be able to close the Pandora’s box so we’re likely looking at either 1) or 2) depending on how the power struggle in the Republican party comes out after the election. I know a lot of people here are in mortal terror of a conservative takeover of the Democratic party with 1) but I just don’t see it. Look how fast Jim Webb’s campaign collapsed. Adding a Republican splinter party to the Democrats might have meant he made it to the primaries rather than having to quit early, but it still would have come down to Hillary or Bernie. There’s just not enough Republican Establishment voters to make a difference.
“There’s just not enough Republican Establishment voters to make a difference.”
If we define ‘Republican Establishment voters’ as Romney-to-Clinton voters, what potential range of numbers are we looking at? Where are they located? What possible effect might they have on local elections after they combine with the Blue Dogs?
I don’t know the answers. But that’s the kind of analysis I’d love to read, instead of ‘because no, stupidface.’
If we talk about Republican Establishment voices, what effect do they have on the national discourse? DC is still ‘wired for Republicans,’ as John Marshall (I think) said. Will Romney/Clinton voices have an oversized impact?
If the Republican Party truly and utterly collapses, what percentage of their voters might shifts to the Democratic Party? (I’d love to hear your wild-ass guess about this one.)
I don’t know a good way to give a really hard answer, but I figure Kasich + Rubio in the primaries (when it was down to 3 Republicans) is a decent proxy for “largest possible group of reasonable Republicans”. That was only about 25% of the Republicans. Political affiliations are sticky, so I don’t think more than about 12% would come over, and there are more Democrats than Republican, so the largest number that would come over would be something like 10% of the Democratic primary vote. That would change some close primaries, but not alter the basic alignment of the Democratic party.
Any effect on caucus composition would be swamped by greatly increased majorities. If 12% of Republicans switched to Democrats, we’d hold the Senate even through elections like 2014 and win even a gerrymandered House in Presidential elections. The 111th Congress had a 40-seat Democratic advantage, but 63 (IIRC) Blue Dogs (plus a lot of squishy New Dems). Nonetheless, even though progressive-minded Representatives were distinctly in the minority, Pelosi got through a laundry list of progressive legislation. The roadblock was the filibuster.
Arghh, ignore “down to 3 Republicans”. Editing error.
That’s an awesome answer. I love when someone is willing to actually answer the ‘wild ass guess’ question! 12%!
I remember reading that something like 10-15% of Democrats who vote Democratic (as opposed to Republican-voting hand-me-down-Dems) call themselves conservative. So while you’re right … it also means that we’ll suddenly double the number of conservative Dems. And make them more conservative at the same time. It’s hard for me to imagine that not having an effect.
On the other hand, I guess they won’t stay Dems for more than a single election, once they see who we get chairing Senate Committees? So maximize them right now, as windfall votes, and then hope/expect them to fuck off soon?
A quarter is a substantial fraction, but still very much a minority. At most it means we’ll get some New Dems where we might have gotten progressives. They won’t be able to get Blue Dogs except in very conservative district. Most importantly, the seniority system puts progressives in charge. What gets passed is basically progressive legislation, with the minimum amount of giveaways to the less-progressive to get the bill through. As you can see from the 111th Congress, that’s pretty good, and if it’s an ongoing situation it will get very good as enacted legislation shifts the Overton Window and the New Dems and Blue Dogs will shift along with that.
Missed responding to a point: If it’s a single election they’ll have no effect at all on the Democratic party. I was assuming in this discussion that they “reasonable Republicans” move over permanently because the Republican Party goes full-out America First/White Nationalist.
what they did about dubya!
With the variant that going back to the status quo also hinged on their extremist wingnuts self-re-branding as “Tea Party”.
Hank Paulson would be very disappointed to hear that she was Secretary of the Treasury.
It seems that she was Treasurer of the United States, as different a position as the Solicitor General is from the Attorney General.
You have lost John Yoo, your base is crumbling:
“John Yoo Is Willing To Write Off SCOTUS Rather Than Risk A Trump Presidency”
If I suspected that there was any method in Trump’s madness (which I don’t), I’d say that he’s now totally messing with GOP-minds with his hiring Breitbart’s team to take over his campaign. Whee — let’s see what the true bottom is for a GOP Presidential nominee. Might be a big payday in store for him if he’s put his chips on 20%.
Is there any credible scenario in which a sizable part of the GOP electorate votes Libertarian (say) out of protest? I’m thinking not–based on experience–but with the normal political rules having been chucked out this year, perhaps experience is irrelevant. It has been widely remarked that Trump’s recent campaign-team shakeup suggests something along the lines of “Willie Horton 2.0” from here on out. How many GOP voters might actually be disgusted by that and willing to jump ship?
Ask someone that you respect and agree with. There is great supply here.
You’ve got a better historical perspective that most commenters here, and I certainly respect that, so your thoughts would be appreciated.
The conservatives I know won’t vote Libertarian. It’s a very limited group – my parent’s upper middle class Silent Generation friends from the South. As of June when I visited they were either profoundly disgusted with the whole thing or doubling down on Trump (astonishingly). They’ll never vote for somebody who supports marijuana legalization, though.
Younger conservatives have already switched to Johnson – he’s far ahead of Trump among voters under 30. But that’s already in the polls. I do think it’s possible Johnson’s support will fade a lot less than third party support usually does and he’ll get close to 10%. I don’t think he can get much more though, unless Trump really flames out – and I’m not sure it’s even possible for Trump to flame out worse than he already has.
Breitbart.com is now in charge of his campaign.
It’s possible.
.
Billmon:
Uff da.
Appears Cruz did the smart thing by not supporting The Donald. He just might be able to hold onto that senate seat.
Polls show him behind Perry right now.
And Perry is any different from Cruz, how? Meaning voting legislation/appointments of course.
Pool time!!
Pool 1: First R ad to say “We need to stop Hillary by electing Senator X”
Pool 2: First R ad to say “We need to stop Hillary by electing House member X”
Enter date and state
I think Mark Kirk will try it, he’s already doing the $400 million ransom nonsense and it’s only August