Posted on 07/04/2006 7:38:49 PM PDT by nj26
Cannon ran as a border enforcement candidate.
His ads at variance with some positions he's taken in D.C.
This on top of incumbency, party apparatus support and otherwise conservative record against an untested relatively unknown novice. A novice that made a statement about Satan in the final days of the campaign that was questionable.
You may find if your review my posts that I never said Jacobs would win, though some others did. I contributed. I supported him. I prayed for a different outcome, but had doubts he'd win. The reason? Not that I doubt the strength of the issue, but I have a healthy respect for incumbency.
I'm a student of the Toomey/Specter campaign. Toomey didn't win, and he ran a batter campaign then Jacobs. I'm honestly not even sure Laffey is going to win though he has the best chance of all of them...provided the recent increase of Dems registration shifting Republican there isn't a significant factor.
Perhaps this means I have a bit more faith in the power of incumbency then the power of the issues..at least right now? Probably, and probably that attitude will exist until we finally succeed in beating the power of "incumbancy". It eventually will, it's only a matter of when. Losing doesn't bother me. It's a setback, but lessons are learned hopefully, and keep trying till success is achieved. This is why the loss may have depressed some people, but you'll notice they are back fighting for what they believe in. This won't change.
BTW, to address your question further you need to understand something. I've never claimed the GOP was in danger of losing it's slightly above 40% base support in elections. Both parties have a significant number that will vote Dem/Rep no matter what. It's that other 10-15% they struggle to win over. The GOP isn't in danger of losing districts that have voted 60-70% for them in past over this issue. If they win by 56% or 70% they'll still win. They can afford to lose a few disenchanted constituents. It's the closer districts where that 2%-5%-10% can make a difference. You saw that in the Bilbray race. It was closer then it should be because about 4% went to an even stronger border candidate and 1% to an overall more conservative candidate. And about 2% stayed home. A small percentage of people upset CAN upset close districts and state races and that should concern you.
Also, You cite low turnout as though that's a good development. It's not. It denotes apathy. Forget the actual issue on display, apathy is the worst nightmare in a year where base turnout is critical. In 70% Rep districts it's surviveable. But in districts like Bilbray's or even when hackett was running and came close to winning by running a conservative campaign and people staying home...that isn't a good sign.
Whether or not you support the Bush plan, or Pence's plan...if enough don't they could tilt close races by staying home and you can't dismiss that.
As events would have it, the base of the party's mood has somewhat improved as amnesty stalled, positive developments in the WOT, and the Dems repeated treason. But they are playing with fire if they start pushing amnesty again.
Amen and repeat.
If as a citizen I break the law, do I get all my violations forgiven? If I don't pay taxes, will the IRS waive MY fines? If I steal someone else's identity, will the judge eliminate MY jail sentence?
Why are noncitizens being held to a LOWER standard then citizens? As guests, they have even more of an obligation to obey the house rules.
Finally, why should anyone obey the law if it isn't impartially applied or is twisted to suit a select few after decades of being deliberately ignored? That's the main problem with Mexico, and we are following right in their corrupt footsteps.
Tell you what, if following the law is optional for the politicos and their cronies in DC, then so is my paying taxes.
The Pence plan is pure unadulterated ***impolite word***.
Gingrich likes the Pence immigration plan
6 Jun 06
Newt Gingrich gives kudos to the Mike Pence immigration reform plan in his latest Human Events column: One positive addition to the border-security and immigration debate is Rep. Mike Pence's (R-Ind.) bill, the Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act. This bill is as close to the right solution as I have seen. It sets up a four-step process starting with what is needed and universally agreed upon -- border security. Second, it does not provide amnesty for people in the United States illegally. It requires them to go home. Next, it sets up a work-visa program using electronic bio-metric security based on conservative market principles. After an American employer can, in good faith, show that no American worker will fill a job offer, a work-visa holder may be hired. The key feature is that, in order for people who are here illegally to get a work visa, they must go home, because work visas will only be issued outside of the United States. Fourth, once the program is set up, companies that continue to ignore the law will be sanctioned severely. I hope the House will take a serious look at Rep. Pence's thoughtful and pragmatic approach to solving this issue.
No it shows that the illegal immigration issue wasn't enough to get all of those phantom Tancredo voters off their butts and take advantage of the turnout. Primaries are base elections and if the base wants a Tancredo sock puppet then that puppet should sail to victory.
It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. These so-called 12 to 20 million, self-selected "guest workers" are really immigrants on the path to citizenship.
Oh cut the crap. I talk in specifics and you give me BS about the meaning of "is" and then some general slogan about "being on the path to citizenship".
Yes, it is an amnesty type advantage to wait in country for a a green card, but three things. (1)They aren't cutting in front of others waiting in the green card line; (2) they aren't voting as citizens; (3) we don't see a slug of new voting citizens like we did under Reagan's amnesty without an increase in the green card quotas.There's the "amnesty".
"Amnesty-type advantage." LOL. That's a euphemism for amnesty.
LOL, I call it an "amnesty-type advantage" and then I call it an "amnesty" in several parts of my post and you give me some BS about using a euphemism for an amnesty.
I've made my point and as I said before, add an enforcement first HR4437 type plan and I will gladly consider the above-type of amnesty if enforcement works over time.
I think most of the country will too.
Similiarly, it wasn't enough to get all those supposed Cannon supporters out to vote to protect his hide.
The argument turns both ways and buttresses my point.
Apathy, which usually results when someone loses the impression their votes matters, is the deadliest trait to a politician in midterms.
Why is that difficult for you to acknowledge? The GOP is worried about it, even if you are not.
But it's clear you are unable to grasp that point, as well as the point that 40% some voted against him. Which comes back to my other point. If 2-%-5%-10% follow their lead on this issue in close districts the Majority is harmed. A few people can make a difference, and that scares you.
My take on the Pence "Not Amnesty" plan:
"I want a car, any car is fine as long as it's not a red car."
"Here's the perfect car for you!"
"It's red though! I said no red cars."
"It's not a red car. A red car is a car that is red all over. The tires are black and the rims are chrome, so it's not a red car."
"You are retarded."
56% of those that voted for him voted and he swept every county. You appear to be math challenged.
Man, you must be really ticked at the voters who handed you your arse last week then.
Because Enough people don't believe that about the issue that close elections can be affected, and certain posters think belittling them, namecalling, attempted intimidation and spinning the issue will eventually bring them into line.
Now you have really hurt my feelings.
If your desired change to the existing laws were palatable to the general public, you could explain and clarify your position however long it took, secure in the knowledge that you would eventually win the voters over with your desirable legislation.
You aren't doing that. You are calling those who disagree with you names. Not necessary if time is on your side.
The longer Hillary care was under the public magnifying glass the less chance it had. The Democrats had to try to get it through quickly or it would never happen. I believe the Senate immigration bills are under that same requirement for quick passage.
Texasforever, you may dissagree - but this constant name calling fails to enhance your argument.
LOL! You just described the Tancredo PAC campaign against Cannon to a T.
My English comprehension must also be in doubt, as your sentence made no sense.
Not that it matters, as per usual insults have become the default position. This usually occurs when anyone is unpersuaded to be silent and accept amnesty.
Guess I'm still not "dealing" with it. LOL
Friend I have been called a Quisling, Race traitor, BushBOT and that is just the nicer things from this crowd. If you don't like it just scroll right on past my name. Rational debate with the borderbots is a waste of time. They whine and moan about every Republican that does not bow to their demands and support a guy that forms pacs to defeat conservatives that he isn't fit to be in the same room with. They cheer on a Marxist in Mexico because they think it will force the Berlin wall they dream about every night. The names I call them are compliments compared to what I really feel they are.
You got that right. LOL I try to limit my contact with Texas liberals and for that matter, liberals from anywhere. These two clowns are really harmless jokers. But you're right, they have nothing in common with conservatives.
Well you said it I didn't.
Yes. Looking at it closely shows all the "hidden" loopholes to allow a stealth amnesty.
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.