Posted on 06/15/2014 2:13:26 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
But it was tiny, because most of the people who could have voted and might have changed its outcome didn’t bother. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now that is spin , big time.
The fact is that America is bent on rejecting Obama’s liberal fascism rule by executive order. There are now very few moderate voters in the electorate, who traditionally may not show up. It is these former moderates who ARE voting, and they are voting for conservative policy.
And BRAT had negligiable tea party support. He actually did it on his own.He just happens to be conservative.
Hispanic voters aren’t mind-numbed robots and they do no vote as a single block.
People whose family has been here for decades are no more pleased by the huge influx of foreigners from south of the border that other citizens. Particularly as many of the newcomers have a “viva yo” attitude, or “long live me” to translate, which implies to Hell with everyone else.
I am not opposed to immigration nor to immigrants. What I am opposed to is allowing millions of immigrants from one particular place without a reason other than they want to come here.
We do occasionally allow that when a group is being purposefully targeted for extermination, such as in Somalia. But it hasn’t been done for whites in South Africa who are being murdered at a large rate and I sense a definite racist attitude on the part of this administration.
The number of people allowed to annually immigrate should be 200,000, period. The only exceptions should be for a population targeted for genocide.
Wonder what the reaction will be when 3,606 Americans take up arms and start shooting the traitors.
This is a typical line: “Why should so few people have such an effect on so many people?”
A few responses:
1) Who knows if more people turning out would have helped Cantor? I suspect not...and we will never know.
2) INTENSITY on an issue is just as important as POSITION on an issue. Any Republican that has tried to side with Democrats on Gun Control learned that fact long ago. Intensity brings out voters, intensity also flips voters. What the Republicans in Washington learned last week is that Amnesty is not the same as bringing home a “water project”, and going against the base on Amnesty, especially now, is at least as risky as going against them on gun control. So all of their gay pollsters (and they’re always gay) can tell them Amnesty won’t hurt them, but they just saw a giant get felled.
3) Finally, the Republicans Reps need to understand that their job is to represent THEIR VOTERS on issues, like Amnesty. There are plenty of Democrats willing to sell out the country on the issue - there is no need to join them.
I like all kinds of hand wringing, and this column is no exception.
“Have I mentioned that Cantor is not a moderate?”
And, to Susan Estrich, I’m sure that is true; given her hard left stand on most things. She characterizes anything to the right of her as ‘not moderate’.
Just sayin’... Consider the source. And, I still can’t stand to listen to her voice.
Without evidence, this author is taking a leap making that assumption. I'm inclined to believe that more people voting would have still resulted in the same outcome.
Brat had a winning message and he delivered it tirelessly to whomever would listen. He couldn't even get the national Tea Party to return his phone calls.
Cantor lost because he is an arrogant prick that has the mindset that he was entitled to that job. He quickly forgot that he was voted to represent the people of a state.
He’s not a moderate. Frankly, if he had been some freshman house member, he would not have been targeted. His problem wasn’t his overall record, it was his being in a powerful position and constantly doing and saying things that scared conservatives.
From my reading of the vote, the goal here isn’t about whether you can get a better conservative voting record for the 7th district. Frankly, Brat looks great, but he’s never voted before, so nobody really knows what will happen when he actually sits in that office and gets lobbied by the entrenched interests.
The goal here is to put a more proven conservative mover into the majority speaker role. And to send the message not to mess with immigration.
I think it is reasonable to suggest that if you managed to drag another 20,000 voters out who cared so little that they didn’t vote, they probably would have voted for Cantor, because you tend to vote for a name you recognize, and for the person who already knows how to do the job.
The point of making voting at least slightly difficult is to ensure that we get votes out of people who actually CARE about things enough to think twice. That is why I am very opposed to making voting easier.
“They obviously weren’t thinking about the fact that you’re a lot better off, practically speaking, being represented by one of the most powerful people in the House than by a freshman.”
That is what we call a completely bogus assertion. Would you say that if Nancy Pelosi were your Congresscritter in the previous Congress? Just to pick an extreme case.
Hello??
It’s I M M I G R A T I O N.
Dumbass.
You miss an important point. To a leftist like Estrich, “moderate” means “a leftist who is trying to pass, and to convince the American public that he isn’t one of us.” In those terms, she’s probably right. By any objective standard, Cantor is “moderate,” in that he doesn’t appear to stand for any principles at all other than the accrual of personal power.
"People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people."
( V for Vendetta )
The sad fact is, America can’t really do any thing about executive orders other than try to get immediate injunction.
The tyrant, the treacherous tyrant, rules!
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.