Replies

Cannon has been forced into a primary. His opponent pulled 52 percent of the delegate votes at the Utah State Republican convention to Cannon's 48 percent. It doesn't mean Cannon is out, but it does mean he's in the race of his life. Cannon represents the most conservative district in the most conservative state in the nation. The Democrat candidate will have no chance of knocking off the Republican candidate in the general election, whoever that might be. Thus the primary election in July will determine whether Cannon returns to DC or he is replaced by his Republican opponent. Primary elections are sparsely attended in Utah and turn on which candidate's "machine" is most diligent in getting its zealots to the polls. Cannon may have met his match.

Cannon voted for HR4437. Cannon has a perfect 100% ACU rating in 2004 and 2005.

Whats the problem?

Cannon voted for HR4437. Cannon has a perfect 100% ACU rating in 2004 and 2005. Whats the problem?

Facts don't matter. /sarc

GOOD post, Free Reign.

Is this a 300 + posts thread of people CHEERING Republican losses?

In-damn-credible.

The problem? Cannon is open borders. Notoriously so.

His opponent will also be 100% ACU. And for closed borders and anti-amnesty. And if he wins the primary, he will win the seat.

That's an improvement.

Cannon was forced into a primary two years ago too, but his opponent lacked funds and the open borders debacle hadn't reached full hideous flower. Here's an excerpt from a 2004 article in National Review On-Line that points up Cannon's "problem" quite nicely:

"The [Wall Street] Journal and Chris Cannon are exemplars of this second kind of post-Americanism, and thus the editorial makes sense — it's not the candidate as such that's at issue but the validity of his post-American worldview. Though his lifetime ACU rating is almost exactly the same as restrictionist leader Tom Tancredo's (96 and 97, respectively), their answers to Sam Huntington's "Who Are We?" couldn't be more different.

"Central to Huntington's question is the distinction (or lack thereof) between us and them, between Americans and foreigners, and especially, between legal and illegal immigrants. And Cannon minces no words here. Two years ago, upon receiving an award from MALDEF, a left-wing racial-identity group created by the Ford Foundation, Cannon said "We love immigrants in Utah. And we don't make the distinction very often between legal and illegal." He went on to boast of Utah's acceptance of Mexico's illegal-alien I.D. card and even praised pregnant women who sneak across the border to have their children.

"Nor was this an isolated incident. Just last month, Cannon and an aide appeared on a Spanish-language radio show (Cannon did his LDS missionary work in Guatemala), where the aide to urged illegal aliens to surreptitiously contribute to the Cannon campaign in the name of their U.S.-born children. It's worth looking at an excerpt of what aide Marco Diaz said, as Cannon sat next to him:"

. . .if you are undocumented you must find, we welcome this money, but you have to find someone who is legal in order to donate money, or in other words the federal law really does prohibit us from doing some things and we want to do everything by the rule, if not, our opponent can attack us and say "you see, he is trying to...to influence the race with people that, that are not here legally in this country." Therefore, it has to be done with precaution.

Cannon's opponent this time around, John Jacob, can match Cannon dollar for dollar in the primary. The mood among 3rd District Republicans has shifted sharply away from Cannon's open borders sentiments in the past two years. Where in the past they were willing to overlook it, they have clearly signaled "enough, already!" this time around. Cannon may try to salvage his position by publically adopting a closed-borders posture for the next few months. Chances are, it won't work.

No fair. I asked first.