Puerto Rico's Governor arrested

This week Puerto Rico’s Governor was arrested on charges of misuse of campaign funds and conspiring with US contractors for deals with his administration, in exchange for favors. This comes as a huge blow for Barack Obama, who had the support of the Governor and his super delegate vote.

But what’s more important is what direction the country will now go regarding statehood. The current Governor Anibal Acevedo Vila was a member of the pro commonwealth Democratic Party, and is supported by Barack Obama. The second major political party in Puerto Rico is the New Progressive Party, which favors statehood, and is supported by Hillary Clinton. What this could mean for Puerto Rico is that if Obama louses the political support of Puerto Rico because of the loss of the most visible Obama supporter on the island, and Clinton wins the election, then we could see a push for statehood led by the NPP and supported by Clinton, which would of course alter the very political fabric of Puerto Rico.

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-prgov0328.artmar28,0,3198797.story

political capital for Puerto Rico?

In class we have been talking extensively about the loss of political power of Puerto Ricans. But with the upcoming presidential election that trend could be turning. Puerto Ricans do not get to vote in the presidential election, however there are 55 delegates from the island, and with the close race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, more and more attention is being placed on the political importance of Puerto Rico in this election.

I think that it will be very interesting to see how much political capital Puerto Rico can gain from this election and how much of it they can keep. Jose Sanchez talks about power in relation to interests on page 41. A high interest in A by B (in this case Puerto Rico-A and the presidential hopefuls-B) directly correlates to a high equilibrium of power between A on B. What does this mean for Puerto Rico? I think that it could mean greater political say in the US government, perhaps even a vote for the representative in congress. It could mean return of lands currently held by the US government, or increased federal funding to create jobs. But what I think will the thing to watch will be how much of this attention and promises will be kept after the election. I guess there is only one way to find out, and that is to just sit back, and wait and see.

www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/18/news/CB-POL-Puerto-Rico-Clinton.php

In the conclusion of Fluid Borders Lisa Bedolla sates that to “bring new voters into the political system is not necessarily in the parties’ best interest. They would be spending limited resources on engaging individuals who may or may not vote, and more important not vote for them (p. 188-189). I find this interesting because both parties are looking very closely at who can reach out to the Hispanic voters this election. Bedolla says that parties would like to spend money on partisan voters, or “sure thing voters,” but this does not seem to be the case.

It seems that both parties are treating the Hispanic vote as an independent one, which could sway either way. With this in mind I think that Contrary to Bedolla’s belief I think that we may see a concerted effort to try to reach out to the Hispanic vote this election. And a real effort to incorporate new immigrant voters this year.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080227/NATION/267093512/1002&template=nextpage