In 2008 the political pundits said the presidential election was the most Latinized, ever. It was also the first time, that I know, that the term was used in the U.S. to define a Latino influence on something besides food, commerce or television.

The strange thing was that  the 2008 presidential election was not Latinized by Latinos, it was Latinized by non-Latino presidential campaign managers who decided that Latino voters had become a vital voting group. Candidate Obama led the Latinization of the 2008 race with, according to the Washington Post

the Democratic candidate looking deep into our eyes and carefully pronouncing 65 words in Spanish.

If this year is any indication, next year should make 2008’s Latinization look pale and thin. Already the dueling Spanish TV ads have begun with Carl Rove’s Crossroads GPS off the blocks first with an ad-run concentrated in key Florida markets – and the election is still 16 months away.

The Crossroads ad is a direct attack on president Obama and his administration, so the Obama campaign shot back with an ad of it’s own attacking the Florida attack ad.

It’s on…whatever it is.

Back in 2008, and “the most Latinized presidential campaign to-date,” the Washington Post had the same doubt:

Is this just a little bit of linguistic showing off? Most Latino registered voters don’t need to be addressed in Spanish. Those born in the United States tend to speak English fluently, and those naturalized as citizens had to pass an English test. The Pew Hispanic Center reports that 84 percent of Latino voters speak English very well or pretty well.

Here we go again, or as my Mama Grande was fond of saying  ¿Otra vez la burra al maiz?

I personally prefer a non-Latino candidate to say a few words in Spanish – a greeting maybe or something at the end of their speech or ad – if they’re so inclined.  I have a problem with pundits declaring a campaign Latinized because candidates produce commercials in Spanish and buy airtime on Spanish TV to run them. I think Latinos should be the ones to Latinize a campaign with their votes, not Carl Rove or David Axelrod with their ads. I’m picky that way.

Last week I came across this headline in the Christian Post: Rick Perry Would Help Republican Outreach to Latinos...apparently, and according to the CP, becasue he’s from Texas. The GOP is infatuated with the idea of a candidate who can beat Barack Obama in 2012; Perry is their latest crush and he hasn’t even declared his candidacy. But already they’re dipping him in the Latinization pool, and declaring he floats (his record in the Texas Latino community is fodder for another day – if he finally decides to run).

My question is simple: who are they trying to convince?

When 84% of Latino voters speak English well or very well; when non-Latino pundits christen election seasons as Latinized or not; when candidates do phonetically-learned Spanish phrases in their speeches; and their campaigns do Spanish ads on TV; who do they presume is listening?

I’m not saying that candidates shouldn’t court Latinos in Spanish, it’s just that the whole idea of a political courtship is creepy; so is the idea of a political observer deciding if the creepy courtship is Latinized or not. I can decide that for myself, in which case it goes from being an assumption to a choice. And that’s my point.

Spinning a Spanish ad and calling a political year Latinized is like talking about me when I’m in the room. I can hear you. Stop it.

Follow Victor Landa on Twitter: @vlanda

[Photo taken from DNC: En quien confiar ad, courtesy Democratic National Committee]