First, Limbaugh caused Bush serious problems by endorsing Pat Buchanan and spending 3 hours a day on the radio tearing into Bush. Yes, he came around at the end but the damage was done.
Second, what I did was give an elegant example of a group of people getting what they want, not what they don't want, but deciding to make it a my-way-or-the-highway-issue that politicians understood. See, they understood that Hispanics would vote against them if they supported immigation control. What they also understood was that people with your point of mind would vote for them no matter what, so long as you perceived their opponent to be even slightly worse.
The point is you need to learn a lesson from the hispanics and put your foot down on issues that matter to you else you will wind up with an open border policy.
I strongly support the PHS plan.
And I sincerely hope the "winner" to be targeted winds up being Dreier.
Dreier has an "F" ABI rating for his recent votes on immigration issues.
His career grade is somewhat higher, which illustrates that he has gone from someone who was moderate on immigration to one who now votes in lockstep with the leftist loonies.
His Democrat opponent sounds like a reasonable person. She will probably actually have a better voting record on immigration than Dreier. (of course, it wouldn't take much).
Can John and Ken topple Dreier? I I don't know whether they will succeed, but I believe it can be done. It depends on how hard they work at it, and how much the immigration issue has heated up by November. That issue has been gathering considerable steam, as witnessed by the primary victories the other day by immigration reform advocates Vernon Robinson and Tom Price.
Whether or not they succeed in toppling Dreier, one thing I do believe they will be able to do is make immigration the dominant issue in the Dreier race. And, they will be able to do so despite the fact that neither candidate will want it to be.
For conservatives that don't consider immigration to be as weighty an issue as I do I can understand that they would not want to see Dreier toppled.
Since I am a one issue voter on the issue of immigration reform, I would consider a Dreier defeat to be a tremendous victory.
Clearly, public pressure is bearing fruit on the immigraiton issue. Bush has shut his trap about his amnesty proposal for the time being, and he got Frist to not bring AgJobs to a vote on the floor of the Senate.
But a lame duck Bush no longer concerned about winning another election is almost certain to try to push for his "guest worker" bill. And in my view, no legislation would do more damage to this country than Bush's immigration proposal. (since Bush would not only legalize illegals but allow unlimited numbers of foreigners into this country provided they were offered a "job", his plan is arguably even far more disastrous than Kerry's, as horrible as Kerry's is)
If Dreier goes down, or has one heck of a close call, that might just be what it takes to get Bush to back off the amnesty in his next term, assuming he wins in November.
Sacrificing David Dreier's political is well worth it to save the United States of America as a soverign nation.
And not only that, but a sacrifice of Dreier is good for Bush. Many of us previously were thinking about voting against Bush to send that same message. That would be a very blunt instrument to try to send the message, since the stakes are much higher and a Bush defeat would be explained by dozens of reasons, with anger of immigration reform Republicans being way down the list.
So a defeat of Dreier is a nice surgical way to send the message loud and clear, with minimal collateral damage. And now immigration reform Republicans can be comfortable voting for Bush in November, knowing we have a better mechanism (defeating Dreier), to make our voice heard. And as close as this election is liable to be, Bush may just need our votes.