WARNING! Rambling rant below!

I think the emphasis on winning the presidency is important. However, the real threat of shamnesty, and the dream act originated in congress. Bush was COMPLETELY behind it, (remember his “see you at the signing” comment just before it was defeated?) and still it failed. The house members must face re-election every 2 years, so are a perfect target for grass roots action. Defeating senators running for re-election who supported amnesty THIS year will send a stronger message than any other vote. Lindsay Graham should be #1 on the defeat list. He was a STOOGE for McCain-Kennedy and amnesty. He has changed his “tune” lately, but when I see that silly grin beaming behind McCain speeches, I know he’s a liar. Don’t forget his award from La Raza, and his now almost forgotten line….Graham to La Raza…“We’re gonna tell the bigots to shut up”… Don’t forget, the bigots he speaks of are US!

Contribute to, or otherwise support his primary opponent if possible. Defeating him in the PRIMARY would be the ultimate insult, and maybe it would change some future votes re: amnesty in the senate. Also, for me it would remove the angst I would feel if I had to cheer his DEM opponent in the fall.

Re: “Dingy” Harry:

Nevada party registration:

Dem=40.2%
Rep=39.3%
Other=20.5%

2004 election

Reid 61% spent > 7 million
Ziser 35% spent647k
Other 4%

1998 election

Reid 48% * spent 4.9 million
Ensign 48% spent 3.4 ”
Other 4%

*Reid won by 428 votes, Ensign won the next senate seat.
—————————————————————————

In my opinion, those Republicans/conservatives who choose to sit out this election because
“their man” isn’t the nominee are making a grave mistake. Those who do vote but abstain or do a write-in for POTUS may not understand how their “protest” affects their greater goals.
Most political blogs and news programming on politics are focused on the presidential race to the exclusion of what will happen in congressional races.

My concerns:

Sitting it out will produce a greater popular vote victory for the DEMS. No, that’s not going to determine the outcome, but it WILL be used to strengthen the “mandate” claims of Hillary or Obama and their supporters.

Casting a “protest” vote will be just as damaging. Many MSM talking heads will use the protest votes to cheer the last vestiges of the Reagan revolution/coalition, etc. The protest votes will all be “credited” to the fractured REP party. If anyone thinks there will be a significant protest vote on the DEM side, I think you don’t appreciate the philosophy in the party that a win for ANY woman or ANY black will be the sweetest victory ever.

I’m a NV resident and am misrepresented by “dingy harry” Reid. No, I’m not a “ditto head”, but the irony of this wimp being tagged with this particular title still makes me laugh. (And I don’t get many laughs in this election cycle). Reid still can’t shake a fist without trembling.

John Ensign, our other senator, lost to Reid in 1998 by 428 votes out of 435,790. Reid won reelection (2004) over a near unknown Richard Ziser, an evangelical Christian who got almost no financial support from NV or national REP party. Reid was able to outspend Ziser $7 million to $647,000, and won 61% to 36% with 4% voting “other”. Maybe Ziser was set up, being given enough support to be the weakest REP nominee after Reid’s close call in 1998?

*Reid won by 428 votes,

No matter what the rhetoric on either side:

The abortion debate won’t be settled by this election. The war on terrorism, and the US battle against it won’t turn on a dime as the result of this election. Our role in the war in
Iraq will not stop or even change in a dramatic way immediately, whichever way the presidential election goes. Economic stimulus will be applied to reduce the possibility of a recession no matter which party wins the WH. No health care system reform will be perfect, and it’s doubtful a comprehensive solution will implemented in the upcoming 4 year term.

*Reid won by 428 votes,

BUT only grass roots outrage STOPPED a pro illegal alien president, teamed with liberal cohorts McCain/Kennedy/Reid/Graham, etc. from SNEAKING the CIR legislation to passage in near secrecy, in the darkness, with NO debate. NEVER TO BE UNDONE!
Had it passed both the senate and house, no doubt GWB already had a copy of the signature page (editable) on his desk with his pen in hand, and it would be law today.
The argument over whether the law was “amnesty” or not is immaterial. It would have granted immediate LEGAL status to all illegals here and hordes more who could come and represent to the government’s satisfaction that they qualified by stating they were here before the “deadline”. Criminals? YES, in most instances. Known gang members? Well, they would have had to RENOUNCE their gang affiliations first! McCain was co-author and THE republican force behind this in the senate. Proponents of the law insist to this day it is not amnesty, because it included a “penalty” to be imposed on all IA’s. So, by that reasoning, how low could the “penalty” have gone and still not technically be amnesty? $100? $20? $5? Would it not be amnesty if it was amended later to have a waiver for those who couldn’t afford it?

Are you willing to sacrifice your vote for house or senate seats when the “I am woman, hear me roar” crowd votes in record numbers? Or when Sharpton, Jackson, Bubba, Carter, Villarigosa,and others of their ilk motivate liberal-minded voters like never before. (Don’t look for anything anti-fem or racist here, folks, nothing to see, move along.)

How about those state or local races? Or those spending measures? Think the newly motivated on the other side won’t vote a straight ticket of DEMS and lavish spending measures and bond issues for anything containing trigger words like “children”, “education”,”families”, “the poor”, “failing bridges”, mortgage relief,”environmental (insert favorite)here”, etc?

Please reconsider not voting and/or protest votes. When the nominees are determined, reach deep, hold your nose, gag, or puke, if you must, but vote for the candidate CLOSEST to your principals, please.

PS. For those who bash RR for his stance on immigration in 1986, give him a break?
Look at the increase in the problem since he left office 20 years ago. Should he have seen the full extent of the islamo-facism threat we live with today, too?

loaner on January 20, 2008 at 5:04 PM