Posted on 12/07/2005 7:56:36 AM PST by Checkers
...What to conclude? Despite massive media attention and around-the-clock boosterism from local radio flaks and know-nothings John & Ken, the candidacy of anti-illegal immigration single issue candidate Jim Gilchrist could only muster 23,237 votes --less than one third of the Graham vote in November of 2004. No "Minuteman" candidate will ever have more favorable conditions than this special election, and still the Minuteman candidate failed miserably. As will a Congressman Tancredo if he mounts a "run" for the presidency.
Hard truth: There is a small, but important anti-illegal immigrant vote. It is less than 10% in one of the most conservative Congressional districts in the country. (Gilchrist tallied less than 10% of the 2004 general election total vote of more than 290,000, even though his highly motivated, single-issue constituency was well-informed and mobilized for the special election. If that's the best this constituency could do in the best of circumstances, it isn't a "movement," it is rather a small, but important "constituency," but not an electorally decisive one.)
The key conclusions: John Campbell will be a Congressman for as long as he chooses to be (30 years?), and other GOP incumbents will study these results very closely and recognize that while there is a 5-to-10% that must be reassured on the security of the border, there is no national tide running that demands an exclusve and relentless focus on illegal immigration.
The twelve words are still the message:
Win the war. Confirm the judges. Cut the taxes. Control the spending.
(Excerpt) Read more at hughhewitt.com ...
I wonder how many of the Gilchrist-ians are aware of Jim's Rollerball view of the world?
So, messing up on something as simple as "absentee ballots" made Gilchrist qualified for Congress how, exactly? If you lived in the 48th District, you could not have missed all the free airtime on wacko talk-radio and Gilchrist signs sprouting up everywhere - until this past weekend, he was leading in those areas by a long-shot - I think Hugh is correct that 10% is all you can count on for "sealing the borders."
I take it you have never listened to the John & Ken show then?
Please don't count me among that 2/3 - I am (hopefully not in the minority) who knows sealing the border is crazy-talk.
Lots of us are old enough to remember a fairly tight border. The little green vans were always around in the border cities - like the one I'm from.
You knew who the illegals were - they were the Mexican looking folks who didn't drive 1 mph over the speed limit - because back then, the cops didn't hesitate to turn them over to the Border Patrol. In fact, the BP vans would meet them at the locality of the traffic stop. A lot of people got sent back with an outstanding traffic ticket - because the BP refused to let them stay around to answer it!
This all was well known to the people in Mexico. They didn't like it, but they knew that U.S. immigration enforcement was serious. So they didn't try - in other words, good enforcement was a deterrent.
It has only been since about 1975 that this equation changed, as organizations funded by the Ford Foundation at the behest of guys like Sargent Shriver (MALDEF is the best example) began to make traction in the leftist courts, and with propaganda campaigns designed to mislead and deceive people about the legal rights of the police to either enforce or aid in the enforcement of the immigration laws.
The result is plain to see in many American cities, but most visibly on the border, where people now live in fear, because the lawless own the border.
The answer is not surrender, as Hewitt claims. The answer is to enforce the laws for as long as it takes to make clear that enforcing them is what we will do.
And lots of us are 30-something who don't want to turn our back on American ideals like "Give me your poor your tired your huddled masses yearning to be free . . ."
You must be kidding.
Your threat borders on insanity. And there will be no write-in vote which exceeds 1%. Most of those loons can't even spell Tancredo.
"The answer is not surrender, as Hewitt claims."
You're just another liar.
Borders on?
No kidding! So you're a supporter of Emma Lazarus and her Socialist aspirations for the United States?
Maybe you're on the wrong website.
Even broken clocks like Socialists are right twice a day.
Are you saying the candidates could mail out absentee ballots? Doesn't the voter have to request them?
Candidates do not directly mail out absentee ballots - what Campbell (and any smart front-runner) did was mail out applications for said absentee ballots - what these people called "lazy man" votes.
Ok that makes sense. Was this Cox's old seat?
yes
Is Jim Gilchrist going to run in Randy "Duke" Cunningham's old district?
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.