"Who do you think the "king" was in the Billbray race?"
Bilbray was king. The issue was not corruption. The Dems tried to make it that, but failed. The issue was immigration, where Bilbray took a strong anti-illegal immigration stance, and his Dem opponent did not, and in fact was caught on tape saying illegals could help in her election campaign. Think as you like, but you are wrong.
Then you have confused me. In your first post, you said "We attacked the King and Won".
I asked who the "king" was, and you said "Billbray".
But Billbray WON. So he wasn't the "king" you attacked.
I was just trying to figure out who the big pro-amnesty person was you attacked in that district -- the democrat couldn't be the "king", she had never held the office.
Does my question make more sense now?
I agree that Billbray winning was a strong showing for the pro-borders push, which I applaud. I'm just saying it wasn't an example of taking down a "king" using the immigration issue.
I happen to think Billbray would have won even if his opponent was anti-illegal-immigrant. But that is just my opinion. It was a good thing Billbray was pro-borders.
My point about corruption was that in the race, Billbray was king (kind of, more like prince, since the king had been deposed). The democrats tried to take down "the king" using corruption as the issue, and failed.
That was the bigger message in that election -- corruption won't win you a race unless the person running is actually personally part of the corruption. Again, that is my opinion, but the point is that immigration was the winning issue for Billbray precisely because corruption was NOT a winning issue for the democrats.
In other words, I don't think Billbray overcame a "corruption" problem using illegal immigration. He won his race because people cared about real issues, not the corruption thing.