Posted on 06/27/2006 10:32:40 PM PDT by Spiff
Jacobs Concedes, Cannon Moves on to General Election
June 27th, 2006 @ 11:12pm
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- U.S. Rep. Chris Cannon, challenged by a political newcomer who accused the five-term incumbent of being soft on illegal immigration, was leading in Utah's Republican primary Tuesday with more than half of precincts reporting.
Cannon led John Jacob 58 percent to 42 percent, or 19,575 votes to 14,395 votes, with 313 of 623 precincts reporting. That includes 100 percent of returns from Juab, Beaver and Millard counties.
The 3rd Congressional District race focused primarily on who stands taller in opposition to Bush's call for a path to citizenship for some 11 million illegal immigrants.
Cannon voted last December for a House bill that would toughen border security, criminalize people who help illegal immigrants and make being in the U.S. without the required papers a felony. But he also supports Bush's proposal for a guest-worker program and says "there's massive room for negotiation."
Cannon's willingness to compromise made him a target of Team America, a conservative group that calls illegal immigration the most critical problem facing the nation. It spent $40,000 on radio ads criticizing him.
Jacob, a millionaire real-estate developer, favors returning illegal immigrants to their home countries before giving them a shot at U.S. citizenship and punishing businesses for hiring them.
At the state Republican convention last month, Jacob captured 52 percent of the delegate votes while Cannon got 48 percent. Sixty percent was needed to avoid Tuesday's primary.
The winner will face Democrat Christian Burridge, among others, in November in a district that anyone but a Republican has little chance of winning. Bush carried the 3rd District with 77 percent of the vote in 2004.
The sprawling district, which stretches south from Salt Lake County and west to Nevada, is heavily Mormon and predominantly white. Hispanics make up about 10 percent of the population; blacks less than 1 percent.
In 1996, Cannon won the seat, in part by arguing that the Democratic incumbent, U.S. Rep. Bill Orton, was soft on immigration. In 2004, Cannon's actions on the issue prompted conservatives to back Matt Throckmorton, who managed 42 percent in his GOP primary loss.
(Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
Attending demonstrations against illegals so they have more than two dozen people would be a start.
So?
yep. in this case, it may pronounced 'hey-zeuss'.
The "norm" is that the House has over a 95% incumbent retention rate. That's not necessarily a "fault of the system", but proponents of term limits often use that statistic to make their argument.
Ok, but then tancredo should shut up too and give his pac money to general election candidates, not to primary candidates outside his district.
How is he a snake?
Your comment about the Mormon and Catholic hierarchies wanting more members is spot on.
But you better be careful or you will be anathematized for your " hurtful" comments by those who are unwilling to look honestly at their own leaders.
I enjoyed your comment that, "What was supposed to be a referendum on immigration is apparently suddenly not a referendum. Or something like that." LOL! So true.
As for your comment, "It's a mystery to me why there are still so many polling organizations in business," I strongly agree with you. I make it a practice to ignore polls, whether or not they have good news for my candidates or issues.
I've tried to read a little bit about their election, but to be honest, I'm really ignorant of Messican pols.
Who do you think the "king" was in the Billbray race? He was the republican running against a democrat in a republican district, and he won. The "issue" was corruption, and the race proved that with a sound clean republican running the "corruption" issue wouldn't stick.
I suppose if the democrat was anti-immigration, and the republican was pro-amnesty, and the democrat won, that might have meant something.
Are you LDS? Why are you so compelled to provoke trouble.
So does Congressman Steve King (R - IOWA)...he is the one who stated that illegals kill 25 Americans PER DAY (murder, drunk driving, etc.). Take it up with him.
I think this is the problem -- purists who claim that a good conservative republican who is 90% on their side is an "open borders puke" because he won't personally shoot illegal immigrants on sight.
The republicans have the winning side on the debate, and the house republicans can carry the day, IF they and the anti-illegal purists will recognize that most of those who are "on their side" are only there relative to the absurd position of the John McCain crowd.
The message of "Secure the border, don't reward illegals, provide a controlled guest worker program, provide a larger pool for citizenship, accept the long-term illegals that have already PROVEN that they are melting into our culture" is one that is supported by a LOT of people when it is explained.
It isn't what the purists want -- they HATE the idea that any illegal immigrant will get credit for hiding well in our population. But every citizen who knows a hard-working illegal living in their community, paying taxes, with a family, mom on the PTA, Father runs a local store, is the local scoutmaster, the are on their HOA board, they speak english -- you won't get those people to EVER agree that these families need to get kicked out of the country.
The sooner you can accept that there's a compromise where you can open up citizenship to the truly integrated, and stick it to the open borders people who want to give away your social security to mexico, the sooner you will realise that you have won, that Cannon is not your enemy, and that while the President would not WRITE your plan, he will fully support it if it sounds like what I wrote above, because he sees the big picture and understands victory.
When you start blaming democracy for your problems, you've reached true "buchanon" status, and will be relegated to the same plane of existance.
Yes, so whereas before he voted with his house leadership, and probably would have been corralled for the next vote, because of tancredo he was forced into Bush's hand and now will be a vote AGAINST tancredo.
It's an excellent strategy, if you like open borders. If you want to control immigration, target the democrats who want to let everybody in.
That is not why churches are pro-immigration. The Mormon church, and the Catholic church, are both major churches for missions outside the country, and are more focused on the salvation of the world than a particular country. They see America as a salvation for the poor, and think it is charitable to allow the poor to "come to america".
I disagree with their point of view, but I have the decency not to mischaracterize their motives just to make me feel better about opposing them.
We've largely lost the ability to be decent.
What good is a politico who votes with the leadership in the house but then supports the rat version out of the senate?
The guy was never going to throw his weight behind the strong approach, he was always going to be weak.
Until the rat version from the senate comes to the house, he "can't" support it. And you have no idea how he would have voted had it ever come, and since it won't come that's not a problem.
I see no reason to expect Cannon won't vote for the republican-crafted compromise even if it doesn't look anything like the senate bill. He had a preference for allowing more illegals into the country, but he didn't sink the house plan before over it, and he won't sink a "pence" plan now, in my opinion.
Or at least, he wouldn't have, before he was targeted and called names and had to spend money and political favors to make it through his primary. Now he is BEHOLDEN to the people who he had to turn to -- the "pro-shamesty" people you like to call them.
How that helps us is beyond me. Like someone else said, if you go after the king, you better kill them. Well, if you go after someone for not being sufficiently on your side, you better get rid of them, because when you are done they won't be on your side at all.
It would be hard to blame Cannon for turning pro-amnesty at this point. Which he wasn't so bad on before.
But I readily admit I am for a guest worker program, and I am for letting some illegals STAY in the country while waiting in the back of the line for citizenship. So I'm not on the same side as the true close-down-the-borders group.
I do want to send most illegals back home, either immediately or when their guest worker permits expire. I want a wall, I want to triple the border security, I want to triple the number of people working in the government to assess people for citizenship.
I want to get good, hard-working people who love our country and want to be a part of it INTO our country and made into citizens.
I want to keep OUT people who think spanish is a great language, who love their culture and just like our money and jobs.
I like America as a melting pot, not a Salad. I believe in ONE culture, the culture of america, not the "multi-cultural" balkanization of our country.
So I am smack-dab in the middle of this whole immigration thing, having views considered extreme by BOTH sides of the question, but seeing the house approach as a better starting point.
Although the idea of making it a felony to BE in the country illegally is stupid to me, as is the idea of it being a felony to provide medical and humanitarian assistance.
I just don't think people should be jailed for walking over a border. Send them home, don't throw them in jail for a felony. Seal the border -- don't use jail time to to it, really do it.
I kind of like the Pence plan. I liked the "general notion" of the President's plan as he outlined it during the campaign.
The Senate bill is a horrible monstrosity that only PRETENDS to be what I support while actually managing to be a law that DOES threaten to destroy our country (we say that a lot, usually it's just hyperbole, but somehow the Senate managed to do it). Actually , the Senate did so because the democrats wanted to make sure the law would never pass, because they think the issue is good for them.
I don't like Trancrado, simply because he has hijacked the immigration debate, and immigration has become an unbelieveable problem to those of us living in border states. I am sick to death of those who make a nice living off paying cheap wages complaining because those of us who have to pick up the tab for those cheap wages are sick of paying their way.
If not, he'll be toast in two years.:
Cannon knows full well that The President and First Ladies interjection into this race helped him at least 3-4%.
He knows he ran against a novice who made some mistakes...thats another 3-4% gain for Cannon.
Put up a good candidate in 2008, remove the Presidents interjection and Cannon's a goner. He knows this. Watch him track toward the right.
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.