Skip to comments.ALERT: The Nearly Diversionary Presidential Elections
Posted on 02/06/2008 3:57:35 PM PST by backtothestreets
Senator John McCain may be the Republican nominee for President, and will most likely face either Clinton or Obama in the General Election. One of the great concerns Republicans voice with McCain is his pro-amnesty stance, which coincidently is shared by the presumed Democratic rivals. They believe McCain as President, or either of the Democrats, would grant amnesty to illegal aliens. Well, our current President wasn't able to accomplish that, and this fact had better make conservatives pay closer attention to all the elections taking place this year.
Class II of the Senate has 33 seats up for election, plus an additional seat from another Class that was vacated. Class II is the most Republican populated Class. Of the present 49 Republicans in the US Senate, twenty-one are members of Class II, with the remaining 28 Republicans seats being members of Class I (9 Republican seats) and III (19 Republican seats).
As many as 13 of the Class II Senate seats are expected to face strong challenges, 11 of which are now held by Republicans (two in favor of amnesty - 9 opposed), and two by a Democrats (one in favor, one opposed).
Once again, very recent history tells us a pro-amnesty president is of no consequence in signing an amnesty bill if such a bill cannot be passed in the Senate. That said, the presidential race will result in a new President of the Senate (Vice-President of the United States) to cast the deciding vote in case of a tied Senate vote when such a bill resurfaces.
The race for the White House is an extremely crucial race, but the greater battle will be for the overall composition of the US Senate, including who will serve as President of the Senate.
Here's a table of how the Class II Senators voted on the two amnesty bills before the Senate last Summer.
|34 Senate Seats Up For Election In 2008 (22 Republican - 12 Democrat)|
A total of thirteen Class II Senate seats, currently held by Senators that took stances on Immigration Reform Legislation in 2007, are expected to have strong competition in the November General Elections. Ten opposed the amnesty bill, while three favored the bill.
Of the Class II Republican Senators voting Nay on Immigration Reform Legislation, 9 seats will face strong competition. The two Republicans that supported the amnesty packages are due to leave office.
Of the Class II Democratic Senators voting Nay on Immigration Reform Legislation, 1 will face strong competition. Additionally, 1 additional Senator absent due to health problems at the time votes were cast is a supporter of those measures, and may face stiff competition due to those health concerns.
Collectively, the net outcome of these races will determine the future fate of any amnesty bills taken up in the Senate in 2009 and 2010.
Also, do not assume a Democratic candidate for Senate would favor amnesty, nor that a Republican would oppose amnesty. The 2006 Senate elections brought two of the staunches Democratic opponents of amnesty and illegal immigration to the Senate. This is not about party affiliation. This is about the future of the USA. Look into the specific positions of all candidates. Assume nothing.
If you are a conservative, and you are considering not voting in the November elections with hopes that by not voting it will somehow fix America or your political party, you may just put America in a real fix. WAKE UP!
I vote downticket even if McStain is a no go.
Speelchek is for wimps!
Alaska picked Obama and Romney, which seems like a fine thing to do. The whole Party thing is entirely extra-Constitutional of course, which means that something is seriously amiss. However, Alaska had traditionally been Conservative and that may be coming to an end. Don’t expect to win Alaska for the Senate or the House. Could happen, but don’t count on it.
There is a difference between not voting for McCain and not voting at all.
I won’t vote for McCain, but I will still vote.
So, if McCain gets the nomination, do you have any suggestions for a third party candidate?
The last I read, John Sununnu is in trouble in NH, and Allard in CO is going to be tough to replace as CO is trending Dhimmi, and they will be holding their Convention there.
Libby Dole should do well though.
In the Alaska R caucus, Paul beat out McCain for third place. Perhaps amusing but not surprising.
“So, if McCain gets the nomination, do you have any suggestions for a third party candidate?”
Hi Jan! I have made a decision for my vote, but before making that known, I have to preface my reasoning. As you are likely aware, my responses to issues important to me get some rather long explanations. My response to your question is no exception.
Top of my considerations for choices, a strict adherence to the Constitution of the United States. This position shouldn’t require a detailed reasoning, so moving along...
As President, Ronald Reagan had a couple of experiences as Commander-in-Chief that offered extremely different results for the nation. The first involved the terrorist attack on a US Marine barracks in Lebanon that killed 241 American servicemen. Soon thereafter, the Marines were moved offshore where they could not be targeted.
The second best exemplifies my own position on protecting our nation. It was a retaliatory strike on Libya for their role in sponsored terrorism. The strike was a complete success, accomplished by aircraft stationed well beyond the reprisal capabilities of Libya.
I learned, as I believe President Reagan learned from these two experiences, the absolute best way to protect our nation is by striking hard, and distancing our military forces as best as possible from areas where they could be easily targeted. Also, having our military stationed in potential hot spots offers our adversaries a degree of insurance as it prevents our military from using our most terrible weapons if the circumstances required them. I have deep respect and admiration for all our heroes serving in our military, and want steps taken to assure as many as possible remain living heroes.
Two added notes on the subject of national defense. There is no place on Earth our military cannot respond to militarily, from domestic bases, if the need arose. Although none of the candidates has suggested it, we would be well served by a President that would author a Doctrine for all nations of the world to see that spelled out exactly what we constitute an attack on our nation, along with a dire warning of consequences if that doctrine is violated.
Another major reason for my third party choice if on the ballot is the current condition of our economy and the fiscal state of the nation.
The economic stimulus proposals in Congress are dangerously flawed. They require the USA to take on further debt which in turn will weaken the dollar and continue our economic misfortunes. The best proposal I have heard thus far would completely end federal income taxes and reduce the federal government to 2000 levels to pay for the lost revenues. For most American households, this proposal would amount to having thousands of dollars every year, not merely a one time $500 to $800 rebate. We cannot continue to add to the heavy financial burdens already placed on future generation of Americans. It is madness, and from my perspective, abusive of the most defenseless among us, children.
As my initial post suggests, illegal immigration is also an issue of deep concern to me. I want our next President to have a very strong stance against illegal immigration, amnesty for illegal aliens, and a determination to secure our borders. On illegal immigration, the upcoming generations of Americans have more at stake than the current adult population. Right now, an estimated 200,000 youths, most of the children of American citizens, have been recruited, many through violence and coercion, to be in gangs affiliated to the foreign national paramilitary organization MS13 and the Zetas. As such, our own youths have been made surrogates of these two extremely violent organizations to carry out crime within our borders. We must rescue our youths from the peril that has infiltrated across our borders.
If John McCain is the Republican candidate, and if Ron Paul is on the ballot as a choice, I will not hesitate to cast my vote for Ron Paul. I am expecting (and hoping), the very high regard Ron Paul has with both the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party, brings these two together to have Ron Paul on the ballot. That choice will likely bring me scorn, but my love of country is so strong that I am more than willing to bear that scorn.
I have read many times that removing our troops from Iraq would signal a defeat by terrorist. I have looked long and hard, and cannot find where anyone held that position some years back, after the 9-11 attacks, when a USAF base located in Saudi Arabia was abandoned under order of President GW Bush, and the justification for the abandonment, the presence of our military within Saudi lands was used by Islamic terrorists to recruit new members and participate in acts of terrorism. That President GW Bush escaped the criticism laid upon Ron Paul for wanting to bring our troops home from another Islamic land has not escaped my scrutiny.
Whatever anyone does with their vote, I hope and pray they place their families and nation ahead of themselves or their political party.
Well Jan, I think Im going to go have a glass of milk and prepare myself for what might be some disrespectful and insulting responses from some FReepers.
Wishing you all the best,
If John McCain is the Republican candidate, and if Ron Paul is on the ballot as a choice, I will not hesitate to cast my vote for Ron Paul.
No scorn from me. I was wondering if there was a chance Dr. Paul would go to the Constitution Party. I will not vote for McCain or Huckabee, and I know many other conservatives feel the same way. I don't want to just leave that vote blank, but I also know a write in doesn't count unless it is an official candidate, so I guess we shall see what happens in the next few weeks.
BRAVO! This is what the grassroots must work on to reap a decent harvest later at the national level....
Whatever the future holds for us, this will be the most pivotal election year of our time. This one, more than any we have witnessed thus far is for America!
I know you are aware of the countless posts made on FR, and elsewhere, raising fear over how the next president may change immigration law, affect taxes, or make Supreme Court appointments. In every instance, the president, whoever that is to be, will have to go through the Congress. In the Senate, many of the staunchest conservative seats will be challenged this year. The race for the White House is a major political battle. The bigger battle will be for control of the Senate as the change in composition of the Senate could either support a liberal president, or win a veto-proof majority to force even a conservative president to abandon principles.
It would be good for everyone to begin working now on Congressional District races too. All are up for reelection.
True enough, Alaska has been a bedrock conservative state, but it has been changing somewhat.
Ted Stevens, the senior US Senator from Alaska, he has made of himself an embarrassment for all that are truly conservative Americans. His budgetary earmark antics are going to weigh heavy in senate races beyond Alaska. For the sake of the nation, I would hope he would step aside and allow a more principled conservative take his place.
That is worth repeating.
I hope all those who say they won't vote for " .... " at least go to the polls and vote for their local representative.
I will definitely cast a vote for president. It won’t, however, be for McCain, Hillary, or Oh Black Obama. Down ticket, I will vote Republican.
or win a veto-proof majority
If the Democrats seriously get a veto-proof majority, does that mean that they can pass anything they want. For example, if they want to vote on a pro gay marriage and they get veto proof majority does that automatically go through or is there something that the Republicans that are left can do?
It is much more common for coalitions comprised of members from both parties to work together on passing legislation which if vetoed by a president would, when reintroduced in Congress, have the two-thirds required votes necessary to override the veto.
Since the latter political coalition formation of veto-proof congressional majorities is the more common, it makes it more important that voters look beyond party affiliation of the candidates, and investigate the issue positions of each candidate.
As for specifics on the Democrats and gay marriage, I think you are wondering if they could amend the Constitution to allow for such marriages. Congressional Democrats would not be able to do this even if they held a veto-proof majority as the amendment process requires ratification of proposed amendments by two-thirds of the states. What they could do with a veto-proof majority in Congress is pass legislation that recognizes same-sex marriages. This would have the effect of legitimizing such unions, and not require an amendment to the Constitution.
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.