Posted on 03/08/2006 4:58:07 AM PST by jsk10
Cuellar defeats Rodriguiz in TX-28
And in a stunning, I repeat, stunning development, the Kos kids invest a lot of time, energy, money, and wishful thinking into another LOSER. As much time as they devoted to defeating Cueller (another Dem by the way), you'd think he was the guy who invented Diebold. Oops, did I say that? Anyways, they are not deterred. They are currently recruiting both Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale for 2008. By then, they believe they will have surpassed UCLA's mark of 88 games without a blemish. I think they can do it.
Cueller, the dem, was funded by Club for Growth.
Which other candidates have they backed?
Isn't clinochhio about 2 for 20 himself? And that would include getting frenchie a big win in Philly, as if that was necessary. This is why I say over and over again that we do ourselves a great disservice by worrying about the rat taking our seats. We should stop the false modesty crap and use the advantage we have to go after the next level of rat seats.
IIRC, under Texas rules, if Cuellar doesn't get 50..( he's got now, what, 48-49%), there will have to be another primary run-off against the same dude...He'll beat him again..the real question is, after November, will Cuellar cross the aisle?
According to RedState, Cuellar is the first Dem they (Club for Growth) have ever endorsed.
The man is considered a conservative. Cueller. The problem I have is Club for Growth using money donated to get conservative REPUBLICANS elected. They seem to have changed their mission.
Cuellar got 53%, a 12 point victory.
I mostly agree with you, though I can't say I remember Republicans being key to their platform. Conservative, definitely. As a Georgia guy, I'd very much prefer Zell Miller to a Chuck Hagel or Lincoln Chafee. And if it means investing some in Dems who are Dems for election purposes, but Conservatives in how they vote, I have no real problem with that. Cuellar is not "ours" but he beats what "they" wanted.
Trust me, this was the most important race of last night, more important even than DeLay's. If DeLay had lost, you'd just get another conservative who votes roughly the same way. This race determined the ideological composition of the seat.
It sends yet another signal that working-class people are not leftist Kossites and have very little in common with their Marxist views. It says something about the social-conservative nature of the Hispanic vote, and the fact that it can be tapped. It shows, if any of them are willing to take the lesson, that Democrats cannot win in America unless they moderate their views.
It also shows that real Dem voters are not motivated by left-wing sloganeering about corruption, at least not enough to get off their duffs and throw out a dem who cooperates with Bush.
OK..thanks..so he wins..because he's uncontested this fall..can we get him to switch parties?
Why bother? It would only risk his hold on the seat.
If it came down to a one-vote majority, then maybe...
He will have to run again in two years, meaning fundraising immediately upon election this time.
Will he be a reliable patriot?
As a Georgia guy, I'd very much prefer Zell Miller to a Chuck Hagel or Lincoln Chafee.
_____________________________________________
Amen, brother.
I remember a wonderful conservative woman beating Cynthia McKinney.
Majette decided to run for senate after her one term in the congress. She lost, and McKinney was re-elected. How does a district go from electing a conservative to re-electing McKinney who is truly insane.
I don't think Ciro will be dumb enough to try again. The only danger is if SCOTUS forces a re-draw of the district.
Cuellar was appointed Sec State under Gov. Bush. If he ran statewide, he'd run as a Republican. He's always voted mostly pro-life, pro-gun, pro-free trade.
Majette wasn't conservative. She wasn't McKinney, though, that was her main selling point.
Her senate run was just stupid.
>>>Cueller, the dem, was funded by Club for Growth.
Isn't that the place one goes to get hair implants?
And therein lies a substantial part of the problem. They are hired to tend to the nation's business, but spend a large portion of their time concentrating on keeping their seats. It is past time for a true term limits law; maximum two three year terms in the house, two five year terms in the senate. The only way politics could become a career should be "up or out". At the end of a final term, they may run for a higher position, or they have to return to civilian status and live under the laws that they've passed.
As far as funds go, anyone should be able to donate any amount to any candidate or party. But all donations have to be anonymous. The can't sell influence if they don't know who is buying!
< /rant >
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.