As seems to be standard fare for Progressives (seeing as you ID yourself as "Progressive Pete"), your post is "slightly" off base as follows:
1. My hub doesn't qualify as a rant. It simply lists a few groups endorsing each candidate. Facts, as the dictionary understands the term, do not a rant make.
2. Your own post may better qualify (rantwise). Froth containing no substance such as "white racists (your term, not mine), go back under your rock, sleep it off, & when sanity returns...ridiculous..."--yes, that would be the stuff of which rants be well made.
3. Of course Raul is supported by Progressives, he being one himself. Duh. But I listed three endorsements for Mr. Grijalva, one being Rodney Glassman (who I believe is white) and the other La Raza.
4. The three (equal treatment, please note) I listed who have endorsed Ruth are hardly all "white", let alone "racist". For example, Michelle Malkin--while a strong conservative--sports a much better tan than anyone of Caucasian descent could ever manage.
In closing (for the moment, anyway), it's worth mentioning that three individuals--all of Hispanic descent though certainly not Progressives--have also submitted pro-Ruth testimonials as listed on her website's home page.
However, and most importantly, no one would ever expect a fellow Progressive to vote for anyone in CD7 other than Boycott Boy. If you believe in what he believes in--which you clearly do--OF COURSE he would have your vote.
Which is as it should be.
Ah. One other item: You refer to "Progressives" as coming from the root word "progress". Of course it does. Nonetheless, that does not necessarily mean that what Progressives consider to BE progresses must unfailingly BE progress. To a Constitutional conservative, Progressives are seen as extremely REGRESSIVE (though of course also quite AGGRESSIVE).
Regressive (from the root word "regress") being the direction of movement when folks try out something that has proven itself an abysmal failure no matter how many times it's been tried in the past.