Tancredo endorses Oberweis for (R) Ill Senate

I was lucky enough to be invited to join a press conference on Monday morning and meet the one and only Congressman Tom Tancredo and Jim Oberweis yesterday at the Palmer House Hilton.

For all you Immigration ping list folks out there, both were gentleman, Very approachable, very appreciative.

Jim Oberweis Rep Candidate for the Illinois Senate seat had and unusual way about himself, he is not a Politician, and said so himself. He is a businessman, for those of you who do not know he owns Oberweis Dairy. It was very refreshing to hear both of them speak.

Congressman Tancredo said it the best. What is happening in America is like the story of the frog who was put in a pot of water. The frog does not feel that anything is wrong, everything seems fine. As the water heats up little by little he has no idea that he is going to be history. The change goes unnoticed, but is fatal.

The problem with this Senate race , maybe like many others. Low voter turn out is expected. Hopefully folks will get sick of losing their jobs to Illegals who will except lower pay.And it is also a wave in Tech jobs, they are being taken over by foreign workers.

Hopefully the people of Illinois will be outraged that they are now expected to foot the bill for college education for Illegal Immigrants, which the law makers voted into law last year.

Interestingly enough one of the other Ill Senate candidates was one of the law makers who voted it in. Steve Rauschenberger Senate Candidate voted that the people of Illinois should pay for the education of Illegal aliens.

The only bone that folks keep throwing around to bash Jim Oberweis with is that he made a "Taliban statement" In a Illinois Leader Interview he explained his "Media Gone Wild" Statement......

IL: I have some questions that have been circulating, and ones to which you deserve the opportunity to respond. It goes back to this comment, the so-called “Taliban” comment that suggested prolifers were like the Taliban on a radio show. Did you say this?

OBERWEIS: Absolutely false. That is not what happened. That is what I was referring to earlier, when I said I started with the statement, “I am prolife . . .” and mentioned the Taliban as my concern about government expressing too large of a role in our lives. So, you know, I’ve answered that a dozen times, or more than that.

IL: So you’re saying it was pulled out of context, at a very volatile time, when it would have been interpreted as the ultimate insult. . .

OBERWEIS: I will tell you that the chain of events was started when the quote was sent to the New York Catholic League. They believed what they were told - which was not accurate. When I explained what had happened, they sent a letter back saying that they found it to be very open and forthright, characteristics that would go a long way to the U.S. Senate. Of course, those comments got printed on page 16 of the paper.

I am a Mexican American woman folks, I love America and have been paying taxes since I was 16. I realize my futher is dim. I read a statement that said it well.............

The Mexican Elite do not want to pay taxes. Do not believe the Mexican Propaganda you hear. Mexico is a wealthy country with plenty of money to build their infrastucture and educate it's people. But the Mexican Elite find it easier to export poverty to the United States and let the American Taxpayer foot the bill.

I asked my dad and he said that statement is absolutely true. Taxes are next to nothing in Mexico.

Got some friends or relatives in Illinois? Shake their cage, tell them to get out and vote! Tell them that Oberweis has the courage to take the "Unpopular" stand against Illegal Aliens,

Great POLL story in todays Suntimes

Few pluses, many minuses to early poll-watching

March 9, 2004

BY RICHARD ROEPER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Advertisement

Just three months ago, the media were all but ordaining former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean as the Democratic presidential nominee -- and we had the polls to back us up.

"Word that Howard Dean is picking up the endorsement of ... Al Gore came as Dean was already moving into a clear lead over his rivals," reported USA Today on Dec. 9, 2003.

" 'This is the first time in our national polling that we've seen Dean pull ahead,' said Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup poll. He said some of the other candidates, notably Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, show 'rapid sinkage.' "

Rapid sinkage? I think Mike Ditka can help with that.

But that December poll did indicate that Kerry was toast. He had 7 percent support from likely Democrat voters, putting him just two percentage points ahead of Carol Moseley Braun and four points ahead of Al Sharpton. And that's with a margin of error of +/- 5 percent.

Fast forward to March 2004. Kerry's the sure nominee and Dean's at home. As the saying goes, Dean was doing great in the race until it was time for people to actually start voting.

That's the thing about those polls: they're kind of a racket.

Of course, the pollsters will tell you they're not in the prediction game, they're in the windsock game. These surveys aren't designed to tell us who's going to win; they let us know which way the political breeze is blowing at any given moment. And because the media love to report on elections as if they're horse races, we breathlessly give you the results of the polls week after week. So from now until November, you'll be hearing story after story that goes something like this:

"In the latest poll results, Democratic contender Joe Candidate has surged ahead of Republican Senator Molly Incumbent.

"Thirty-eight percent of registered voters who didn't hang up on the pollsters said that if the election were held today and they weren't late for work and it wasn't raining, they'd vote for Joe Candidate, primarily because he was so funny on 'Conan' the other night.

"Thirty-four percent said they prefer Molly Incumbent, 20 percent are undecided and eight percent said they had never heard of either candidate but did know the names of all the remaining contestants on 'The Apprentice.'

"The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus five percent."

Filling in the margins

Let's examine that whole "margin of error" thing. Does "plus or minus five percent" mean Joe Candidate might have only 33 percent of the vote, while Molly Incumbent could have as much as 39 percent? Or does it mean the 4 percent differential, when coupled with the five percent margin of error, means the race is the dreaded "statistical tie"?

I love that term, "statistical tie." As opposed to what, an artistic deadlock?

Beyond that, doesn't the phrase "margin of error" imply there's a way of checking the poll against a survey of, like, everybody?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.