“A Hillary Clinton match-up with Marco Rubio,” the New York Times reports, “is a scary thought for Democrats.”
Having “combed over Mr. Rubio’s voting record in the Senate,” Democratic sleuths have discovered (they dig deep, those Democrats!) that Rubio is … a Republican! Thus, the Times dutifully reports, the Dems’ “subtext” is that Rubio “may be Hispanic, but he is not on the side of Hispanics when it comes to issues they care about.” (If that’s the “subtext,” what’s the text?)
But who exactly are “they”? The Times, like the Democrats whose views it usually reflects, has a conveniently flexible definition of “Hispanic,” for the article professes — without reference to any Democrats (or any other Democrats) — that
“[i]t is also unclear how much Mr. Rubio would appeal to Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and other voters with Latin American ancestry who may not feel much cultural affinity with a Cuban-American.
I try to follow racial and ethnic issues closely, but I must have missed the Times article minimizing the significance of Sonia Sotomayor’s becoming the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice because “it is unclear” whether Mexicans or Cubans — especially Mexican or Cuban men — would “feel much cultural affinity” with a Puerto Rican woman.
Nor do I recall seeing amidst all the clamor for maintaining affirmative action by Democrats, university officials, and Hispanics (perhaps that should be “Hispanics” or “Mexican-Americans”) in Texas and California any concern for the obvious “underrepresentation” of Cuban-Americans, Puerto Rican-Americans, Guatemalan-Americans, etc., among the “Hispanics” for whom they demand preferential treatment in order to provide “diversity” to unpreferred whites and Asians.
Oh, wait. “Asians”?
