Posted on 04/12/2010 8:35:29 AM PDT by bcsco
Illinois District 11 Representative Debbie Halvorson is running full-tilt into the 2010 November election. Unfortunately for her, she's running full-tilt into the brick wall that is Adam Kinzinger. With his wildly popular support from area Tea Party groups to his landslide Primary victory, over 60% of the vote, you would think he is definitely an opponent to contend with.
Surprisingly though, very little has been heard from the Halvorson camp concerning her opponent. The average voter may assume she's just running a 'clean' campaign and that may be the case, however it's also possible that she just can't find anything negative to say about her competition.
(Excerpt) Read more at illinoisreview.typepad.com ...
Kitzinger sounds pretty good. I wish we had someone like that running in our neck of the woods.
Saving what little they can make up for a "trick or treat" surprise. Dems do love to drop bombs in the week before the election when it is too late to get effective debunking of their propaganda out.
*IL Politics Ping*
Unless there’s a skeleton somewhere, it doesn’t appear there’s much to drop. His political experience has been local, and not very controversial from what I can see.
And here's some more for your Chicago-style politics jolt for the day...
>>Saving what little they can make up for a “trick or treat” surprise. Dems do love to drop bombs in the week before the election when it is too late to get effective debunking of their propaganda out.<<
Yep. They don’t NEED to find anything negative. They will just invent dirt out of whole cloth at the last second and make him defend the lies. It is the democrat way.
I frankly think we have more to fear from amnesty being passed than this kind of tactic. This year is proving to be decidedly different than the past. The Democrats are losing the PR battle big time...
>>This year is proving to be decidedly different than the past. The Democrats are losing the PR battle big time...<<
From your KB to God’s Monitor...
Wasn’t it a Democrat who said “My opponent matriculated while in college and his wife is a known thespian”? We don’t need no stinkin’ skeletons.
No, they don't. But what I'm saying is, the playing field has changed. The public, except hard core Democrats, has shifted and 2010 will be a different kind of election. I question whether such tactics will get them very far.
The big skeleton in the closet this year is amnesty.
The Democrats will be fighting us every step of the way using whatever tactic, illegal, immoral or unconstitutional they can.
The big skeleton in the closet this year is amnesty.
The big skeleton is healthcare.
Actually, no. The first step, yes. But what's even more at issue is amnesty. Amnesty will insure a Democrat victory come 2010, and seal their control over the country. Without amnesty, they are in far worse a position electorally. Amnesty is the key. With amnesty, there will be no repeal of healthcare.
Don't misunderstand. I agree they'll use every tactic they can. What I'm saying is, without amnesty, the electoral balance is different than in the past. It will be far harder to get such charges to stick this time around. But amnesty trumps everything.
As I recall Kinzinger wasn’t the FR favorite in the primary.
He sure looks like a helluva strong candidate.
The electoral impact of the amnesty issue is quite different from what you portray.
Those of Hispanic origin who are citizens and eligible to vote have one of the lowest rates of voter registration and even lower rate of voter turnout of any demographic group.
Amnesty currently exists and happens every day. The amnesty you refer to just expands the existing amnesty. Many who receive amnesty, and who have always been legal immigrants, choose to not become citizens.
For those who do choose to become naturalized citizens the path is long and slow. And then, especially among the Hispanics, the rate of naturalized who actually vote is extremely low.
Surveys repeatedly show that Hispanic citizens who do not vote are more conservative than those who do vote. In other words, the Democrat machine (at least in our IL) gets more of its voters to the polls than do the Republicans.
But the immigration issue does have a big impact on election day.
ALL PTA MOMS VOTE (or they wouldn’t be defined at PTA moms). Above all else, they want to be nice and not mean spirited. Anti (illegal) immigrant candidates (Oberweiss of our IL) come accross as mean spirited. I knocked door-to-door for Obie both for statewide office (several times) and for congressman (after working for Lauzen in the primary).
Repeatedly Republican voters would give Obie’s mean spirited image on immigration as the reason they were not voting for him. These Republicans live beside illegals. They go to church with illegals. Their kids play with illegals and anchor babies. They see making illegals the scapegoat to be mean spirited.
In short, the illegal immigration issue is a loser for Republicans.
Of course, whether an issue is a political loser or not is totally separate from whether it is the right moral position or not. Here, I’m just referring to your mis-representation of the political aspect of the issue.
The illegals pushing for amnesty will surely be the ones to vote, and vote Democrat. That’s my point.
You seem pretty soft on amnesty. Speaking of the ‘moral’ issue, is it ‘moral’ to overlook someone who enters our country illegally? Is it moral to overlook the burden they have on our society? On those who actually pay for the goods and services they enjoy at our expense? Is it moral to overlook the increase in crime perpetrated due to the higher increase in criminals among their ranks?
Sorry, but you can talk around ‘amnesty’ all you want. I’m anti-illegal immigrant and will continue to be. I suggest you’re barking up the wrong tree.
Is free market capitalism moral?
Since the 1920s we’ve had a minor ordinance against non-citizens entering the USA without getting the permission of Nanny. Tancredo’s HR4437 proposed changing it from a minor ordinance less serious than parking in a handicapped zone to a major felony with a big gubmint bureaucracy to enforce it.
Yes, the problem is mix of the welfare state and immigration. The correct response is to oppose the welfare state. Trying to change the law of supply and demand and the laws of economics is not the way to solve this problem.
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.