Redstate

Someone with a better record should run in that district its next election - NOT Bonilla.

I won't say why not, now. But I'm from that area, though not in his district - but unfortunately I know too much and none of it is good. And most of it never made the news. But us locals all know.

Still, Bonilla is better than wearing a burkha.

Burkahs, butt buddies.

Really, just strong discourse all around.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your interest in RedState. We received applications from many qualified applicants, and we unfortunately could not offer a spot to them all. Well, we could, but we'd rather not.

We wish you well in all your future endeavors. Somewhere else.

Regards,
Mgmt.

(Blam.)

"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I recently came to the conclusion that 'she' was probably a smart liberal troll and not, as she appears, a rather dim bigot.

Glad to be rid of her.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Having tasted a life wasted, I ain't ever going back again.
-E.V.

Medina, Val Verde, Pecos, and Uvalde were Bonilla's best counties in November. 3 of them have yet to report. TOgether, those three went for Bonilla by about a 7,000 vote margin. I don't think he'll pull this out, but it isn't impossible either.

http://www.myelectionanalysis.com

That ain't the thread I wanted.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Being successful at something fits the general mood of this thread too, though. Mmm...bad feelings all around.

This is like losing a game of Rochambeau.

http://www.myelectionanalysis.com

?

(sorry my brain is not working tonight between this and general under-the-weatherness)

Friendly game of ball-racking sort of thing.

First, the Delay redistricting was ruled unconstitutional in one place: TX-23. So it had to be redone and the district became more Democratic. Thus it was supposed to be a close race but Bonilla was expected to win.

Second, the DCCC targeted this seat with $1 million and took over the campaign. I haven't heard a thing from the Republican equivalents and there has been no blogs following the race on the right.

Third, "That is where I think Republican party got hurt is because they are now perceived to hate Hispanics. I am not a big fan of the Senate's or House's plan because I don't think either solves the problem but Republicans can't keep this this up." This is absolutely correct and it is hurting Rs a lot. President Bush won 51% of the Hispanic vote in TX IIRC. But he may be the exception after the rhetoric of certain parts of the party. Hearing people like Boortz talkd about the "Mexican invasion" makes me cringe.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

I think the NRCC probably figured Bonilla was okay, or at least as okay as he was going to be, because he had a gigantic cash advantage on Rodriguez.

The fact that Rodriguez runs terrible campaigns (on the nuts and bolts level...he doesn't raise $) means that this seat can be won back in 2008.

I've been scrolling around online looking to see if I can find Bush's % in the district in 2004, and I can't seem to find it. He got 65% in the old district according to the Almanac of American Politics

Hopefully this will get the Tancredo wing of the party to shut the **** up. I doubt it, but I do hope so. Mexican-American men have the highest employment rate of any demographic group, and quite frankly, if someone wants to trek across 500 miles of Arizona desert just to pick lettuce for 35 cents an hour, that's someone we want in this country. Mexican-Americans tend to line up with Republicans on both economic and social issues, but get turned off by the anti-immigration rants. The best thing to come out of a Democratic Congress will be if some bill is passed that creates a path to citizenship for these people, and lowers immigration barriers in general. Of course, the voters this would create could have been Republican voters, but like so many other things from this Congress, it just frittered this opportunity away. I need a beer.

http://www.myelectionanalysis.com

As well.

And might I recommend whiskey.

One last point...having them shut the **** up might be a little strong, but at least realizing the push does have negative consequences as well would be a good start.

I almost wish I drank. I'd take your recommendation. that might not be strong enough medicine though.

This doesn't fit the thread would be an understatement, but I'm impressed that the person over at RedStateSports whom I find myself in agreement with most often on the NFL doesn't drink.

I guess I tend not to drink while watching football, though. Certainly not during Giants games, enough excitement already. But for election returns, alcohol can be quite a helpful partner. Let's hope the same wishes for alcohol aren't present in a few years.

Oh, you want my opinion on what we ought to do with the Hispanic vote? Um...um...well, winning it would be nice?

to every last sentiment

Mexican-Americans tend to line up with Republicans on both economic and social issues

The poor, as a general rule, do not line up with Republicans on economic issues. It is the poorest of the Mexicans, those who do not have decent prospects in their own country that are sneaking across that border in the middle of the night. On economics, they are ripe for the picking by Democrats. Most of the poor will buy into Marxist propaganda at the drop of a hat. Look at where AMLO's base of support is. The same part of Mexico that is sending us the most illegal immigrants.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Northern Mexico voted for the center-right candidate in the Presidential election.

And I would presume the commenter meant that Mexican-Americans are generally strong on emphasizing personal responsibility and work rather than welfare as a means of succeeding in life. The emphasis on family and work does seem to fit with a Republican worldview more than a Democratic one. And there was a big success in 2004 when President Bush campaigned in spanish media. Unfortunately, it seems the harsh tone of terms like "Mexican invasion" has turned off some potential voters.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

Northern Mexico voted for the center-right candidate in the Presidential election.

Yea, well that just happens be the region you have to pass through to get to the United States, but it's also not the origination point for most illegal immigrants. The most dysfunctional, poor, and rural areas of Mexico are in the Southern part of the country, and those are the ones that send the largest proportion of their population to the United States. Those also happen to be the areas that support guys like AMLO most enthusiastically. And of course you have a pretty significant number of non-Mexican Latinos crossing the border illegally as well. It goes without saying that they must come from even further South than the Mexican illegal immigrants do.

And I would presume the commenter meant that Mexican-Americans are generally strong on emphasizing personal responsibility and work rather than welfare as a means of succeeding in life.

There are a lot of working poor who support the Democrats. Even if you filtered out all those poor people who do not work, I'm willing to bet the Republicans lose that group by a *significant* margin.

The emphasis on family and work does seem to fit with a Republican worldview more than a Democratic one.

Yea, well that is true with a lot of groups that don't vote for Republicans. I would say that economics trumps everything with the majority of voters. The Democrats have a very easy sell on that side, especially when you are talking about the bottom 50% that pays so little in taxes. If a great new government program isn't going to cost them anything, why wouldn't they support it?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

You'll notice the Northern border states don't even make the list. Many of the states near the top are real AMLO strongholds.

Top 20 Mexican States Receiving
Remittances

	Share of total remittances (percent)	Remittances in 2003 (millions of dollars)	Share of remittances in 2001 GSP (percent)	Remittances per capita* (dollars)
Michoacán	12.8	1,695	15.7	425.2
Zacatecas	2.7	355	9.8	262.2
Oaxaca	4.9	647	8.6	188.1
Guerrero	5.2	686	7.9	222.9
Hidalgo	3.8	504	7.9	225.5
Guanajuato	9.1	1,210	7.8	259.6
Nayarit	1.5	199	7.1	216.2
Morelos	2.6	342	4.8	219.6
Tlaxcala	1.0	129	4.7	134.4
Chiapas	2.7	358	4.4	91.3
Puebla	5.9	786	4.2	154.8
San Luis Potosí	2.5	325	4.0	141.3
Jalisco	9.6	1,277	4.0	202.0
Veracruz	5.8	769	3.9	111.4
Aguascalientes	1.7	229	3.8	242.3
Colima	0.8	99	3.8	183.4
Durango	1.6	206	3.3	141.9
Sinaloa	1.9	252	2.7	99.4
Querétaro	1.7	226	2.7	160.6
Estado de México	7.8	1,028	2.1	78.5

* Remittances per capita are
computed using 2000 census population figures. SOURCES: Banco de México;
Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía
e Informática; author’s calculations.

Plus, we tend not to get the dregs of Mexican society. Again, those people tend not to make great hikes across deserts for the opportunity for a job. These are more working class types who come across, and as Adam put it, they tend to emphasize personal responsibility, are culturally conservative, and are (very) hawkish. There's a reason GWB did so well among them in '04. If the Republicans would turn their rhetoric down from 11, they would do well among them. If not, they will end up like that other minority that lines up well with Republicans, but only gives them about 10% of their vote.

http://www.myelectionanalysis.com

Most illegal immigrants do not come from Northern Mexico. Northern Mexico is prosperous and has a decent economy, relatively speaking. They actually have a middle class there. That's why they didn't go for AMLO. The regions that send us all their working age males are basket-case states that are AMLO strongholds. These same places would go for Chavez or Castro in a second, given the opportunity. A few of these top states can barely even be controlled by the Mexican government. They are also some of the top origination points in Mexico for narcotics.

I certainly wouldn't use the word "dregs," but no, it is not their best and the brightest they are sending us. They are sending us their uneducated rural poor that can't make a living for themselves and their families in Mexico. The successful types live in cities like Monterrey and have a house and a car and a 9-5 job. They aren't sneaking across the desert in the dead of the night to find a job picking lettuce.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

His point was that these people, comming from the worst areas of Mexico, are NOT the same people who voted for AMLO. They are the people who LEFT that area to FIND WORK!! And are NOT waiting around demanding government handouts. Thus, they are willing to work hard and reap the benefits that come with it and THAT is why he said they would fit in well with the Republican party.

International Affairs is just Political Science with an accent.

Also have plenty of family in these areas that did vote for AMLO. This would be the same family they are supporting by sending money home.

And are NOT waiting around demanding government handouts.

That would be a very long wait in Mexico. There are plenty of people willing to work hard that are also more than willing to vote for Marxists. Marxism has a lot of appeal to the poor, working or not. It's simply ridiculous to just assume these guys are a bunch of free market guys that will buy into the Republican message on economics. That's a case of wishful thinking.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

This is the same type of faulty thinking that leads many libertarians to think that mass immigration can be anything other than bad for their cause.

Since when do illegals vote, such that President Bush can do well among them?
--
Run like Reagan!

I would presume the commenter meant that Mexican-Americans are generally strong on emphasizing personal responsibility and work rather than welfare as a means of succeeding in life.

This seems to be an instance of sterotyping, and an incorrect one at that. According to Heather MacDonald, Nearly half of the children born to Hispanic mothers in the U.S. are born out of wedlock, a proportion that has been increasing rapidly with no signs of slowing down.

As if the unmarried Hispanic birthrate weren’t worrisome enough, it is increasing faster than among other groups. It jumped 5 percent from 2002 to 2003, whereas the rate for other unmarried women remained flat. Couple the high and increasing illegitimacy rate of Hispanics with their higher overall fertility rate, and you have a recipe for unstoppable family breakdown.

While these troubling social trends are true of all racial/ethnic groups, the fact that they are so high among Hispanics is yet another reason to doubt that the GOP can consistently win over more than the reliable third or so of latinos that they now have. These statistics suggest natural Democrats, not Republicans.

Assimilation is the way that immigrants and immigrant communities become Republican, but assimilation would function much better if there were lower amounts of immigration.

I have a hard time believing Mexican's agree with Republican economic policies. Sorry I am sure if they were offered Free Health Care payed by Taxpayers or no health care they would take the free health care.

Also I really think the "Tancredo wing" of the party has hurt Republicans long term. Perception isn't something people just forget. If Hispanics think Republicans are racist that won't change in 2 years. The vast majority of African Americans still don't trust Republicans, rightly or wrongly. 90%+ support Democrats... Part of that is perception but you can't put it all on perception because of issues like Affirmative Action Republicans are vastly against.

Tancredo is going to run in 2008 as an Independent I think. He mentioned already he wants an rabid anti-illegal immigrant person on the top of the ticket and that is NONE of the front runners.

What is your point on affirmative action and black voters?

Yeah, most Republicans oppose racial preferences, as do most Americans in general. Surely you're not saying the GOP should adopt the strategy they used in Michigan this year are you, where the entire state party establishment came out against an anti-preferences ballot initiative, only to see it win with a 58% landslide margin.

On an interesting sidenote; it is a disgrace that the insane collision between public policies of racial preferences and the mass immigration of those eligible for them gets almost no attention from the media, or the Republican party.

All of this talk about Mexicans specifically, or Hispanics generally, being natural Republicans is just a fantasy, desperately clung to by conservatives who hold liberal views on immigration despite all the evidence to the contrary. Even Asians, who once actually did favor Republicans, now favor the Democrats.

You say Mexican-Americans line up with Republicans on social and economic issues, but put all of that aside and vote for Democrats because of 'anti-immigration rants'. Are you serious? I mean, really, that is just typical leftwing rhetoric you are parroting there. According to you, the majority of Hispanics really don't like the pro-gay, pro-abortion, anti-Christian, pro-high tax, pro-racial preferences, pro-big govt, anti-assimilation agenda of the Democrats, but they'll vote for them anyway because someone tells them that Republicans hate latinos? You think that if Republicans would officially adopt a liberal position on immigration (or in other words, simply become Democrats on immigration), and purge the party of all the hate mongers like Tancredo, then Republicans would be winning the Hispanic vote? If only there were no political expression of conservative views on immigration, then the Republicans would be as right as rain with latinos, right?

What exactly constitutes an anti-immigration or anti-immigrant rant in your opinion? Because surely you realize that any comments that fall short of embracing amnesty, and increased and unending amounts of mass legal immigration will be characterized by the professional ethnic grievance groups, the media, and the Democrats as anti-whatever. So do you really propose that we just surrender to this bastardization of debate, to this twisting of language and poisoning of open and rational discourse? Well, if so, then that means we must embrace an immigration policy that grants amnesty to all current illegals, plus a doubling or tripling of legal immigration. I know that would be okay with you, but to just let the Left cheapen debate in such a way is like blood in the water, and it won't be long before the GOP is caving to the Left's rules of debate on other issues as well. You'd have to be truly delusional to think Republicans have a chance in such an environment.

Following from that, you seem to think that if only the Republicans had passed that monstrous Senate bill, then all those former illegals would surely become Republicans out of gratitude, and that the future waves of legal immigration would do so as well. Well, it didn't exactly work out that way with the Reagan amnesty now did it? And if the current mix of legal immigrants favor the Democrats, then why would you expect a greater amount to do otherwise? I mean, the faith required to believe this is bordering on the religious.

When it comes to the 2006 midterm debacle, it is laughable to attribute it to the GOP's drop with Hispanics to 30% (from 38% in 2002 and at most 40% in 2004). The reason the GOP lost is because its share of the white vote dropped to just 51% from 57% amd 58% from the last two elections. And just so you know, 51% of the white vote is disastrous for Republicans. If the most Republican racial group abandoned the GOP in large numbers, then why would anyone be surprised that their share of a generally pro-Democrat group (i.e. latinos) also dropped? So if whites were put off by the GOP, then why would we be surprised that Hispanics were also, and for reasons not necessarily related to immigration? The simple answer to explaining 2006 is that the public was fed up with Iraq, corruption, and the GOP majority that they blamed for both. The House's admirable refusal to pass the atrocious Senate bill and the rhetoric of Tom Tancredo didnt' cost the GOP anything decisive.

And to get back to the whole question of speech and how its mischaracterized; what exactly would the Tancredos of the party shutting up entail? I mean, what if one believes that a path to citizenship for illegals and guest workers is a bad idea? What if one thinks immigration levels are too high? What if one thinks the nation would be better served by allowing less immigration? Would such sentiments be off limits? If not, then please tell me how exactly one could go about voicing such ideas -- which by the way, are very popular, mainstream views in America -- w/o them being declared as being hostile towards immigrants. How exactly could one express such ideas and pass the filter of groups like La Raza? How could one put forth such views and not be deemed a racist/xenophobe/anti-whatever bigot by the Democrats and their media allies? How could one say such things w/o the WSJournal damning you as a know-nothing nativist? What politically correct-ridden qualifiers will protect people who wish to give expression to the mainstream American opposition to unending mass immigration?

To go back to politics; the simple truth is that the fraudulent 1965 immigration reform bill (and subsequent legislation like the Diversity Lottery) unleashed a very pro-Democrat wave of immigrants. Its been proven in almost every election since, and the very few exceptions where Republicans have actually carried the latino vote in a significant statewide race hardly offer hope. Florida is tricky because of Cubans; the one pro-Republican Hispanic group. Pataki's 2002 performance was against very weak competition in a strong year for Republicans. And President Bush at most won the latino vote once in his 4 statwide races in Texas, and that is questionable. And even if Bush did do as well as claimed with Texas latinos, then why didn't it carry over to Rick Perry or John Cornyn in 2002?

So conservatives such as yourself are now in a position where you refuse to admit the simple truth, and instead try desperately to explain it in a way that can reconcile support for unending mass immigration with hope for the GOP's long-term electoral prospects. One way to do this is to cling to the few examples where Hispanics do unquestionably hold conservative views -- like on gay marriage -- and blow it out of proportion, forgetting that virturally all groups oppose gay marriage in numbers larger than they vote Republican. But the chief method of making believe that mass immigration can work for Republicans has been to blame other conservatives who dare hold conservative views on immigration. If only they weren't so mean. If only they would shut up. If only, then all of these immigrants would be won over by supply side economics! They'd reject the Democrats masterful ethinc pandering and big-govt promises...if only.

Well, the appeal of such a mindset is obvious. In blaming others, it allows you to avoid facing the truth about the inherently pro-Democrat nature of mass immigration. But avoiding the truth, and wrongly laying blame on others won't change things. If, as you desire, the Tancredos were to shut the **** up, then very little would change. At most, GOP landslide defeats with Hispanics would be 65-35, or 60-40 instead of 70-30; and more conservatives would be disillusioned by the GOP's abandoning of them, thus reducing its share of the white vote and truly dooming the Republican party. Would that make you feel better?

My point was that Republican gains because of redistricting wasn't great because of the negative year (or 2) Republicans have been having. I am not a big fan of this mid decade redistricting because I rather not have our state politics be as political as our federal. Maybe though that is my native nature.

Second I can't believe even with 1 million he won this race. Republicans must just not have turned out period. The November loss hurt Republicans in this race.

Third I am glad some people agree with me. I wish we would have a strong border security bill(that was funded) and it had a provision in it that gave up to 250,000-500,000 green cards free of charge to Mexicans. The fact is that it would be much better to be able to track who is coming into our country than just hoping a wire linked fense will work. Though my opinion is generally not well liked by my Democrat and Republican friends.

Whites are now the minority in Texas and the Latino population is still growing. Whites still make up a majority of voters in Texas, but this will change over the next decade or so. Texas Republicans have no choice. They need to reach out to Latinos

That was much safer before the Supreme Court ruled against a part of the DeLay redistricting. That's what gave us this weird runoff situation.

of the global warming crowd. There is literally no data which you cannot plug into your preconcieved framework. Rose was a thoughtful thinker by comparision.

Henry Bonilla represented a district that was 61% Hispanic. He was a supporter of the fence that was passed towards the end of the session. He did as well as he had in the past in majority Anglo counties. He fared much worse in the more predominantly Mexican counties.

See here: http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/12/did_the_latino.h...

And here: http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/12/tx_23_dems_pull....

For statistics which aren't plugged into some preconceived format, but rather a look back at what happened.

I'm not saying that on the whole the fence is a net negative among all voters, but it seems pretty clear that the immigration debate was a net loser for Republicans among Mexican voters.

There were two big factors in this race.

First, from the AP article cited in the main article;

National Journal's Congressional guru Rich Cohen emails the following: a "very well-connected Democratic source told me today that the DCCC spent $1.5 million on the contest largely because they knew that Rodriguez, with his limited fundraising skills, could not win this on his own. So, this is as much (if not more) a victory for Rahm, as it is for Ciro."

Second, from the hotline link;

A three-judge panel redrew the district in August to restore 100,000 Hispanics to the 23rd District that had been shunted elsewhere. The new district, which stretches from San Antonio south to the Mexican border and almost to El Paso in the west, gave Rodriguez yet another chance at national office and made Bonilla fight a little harder to keep his seat.
The new 23rd district has a voting age population that is 61 percent Hispanic, versus a 51 percent Hispanic voting age population before.

That is, Bonillas district was redrawn to massivily increase the proportion of Hispanic voters. He was predicted to be in danger based on this fact alone by observers willing to acknowlege the historic voting patterns of different groups.

And I suppose a third would be the general anti-Republican sentiment this year. The media, predictably, are sounding the "Hispanics reject racist Republicans", abetted by the usual suspects in Republican circles. But money, redistricting, and the normal Hispanic tendency to vote D are all thats at play here.

Incidently Bonilla was hardly a "hard-liner" on immigration issues, although some people are working hard to recast him as one. Had he won this election I don't doubt that we'd be hearing how he is an example of how outreach to the Mexican American community works. Which is where my global warming remark comes in.

Missing in all this is any recognition that the Hispanic vote consistently skews to the political left. It did not just suddenly do it here, it has consistently done so over time. The only way the GOP is going to win more of it is to move to the political left itself. If that is what some people want (and I suspect it is in some cases) then they should just come out and say so. And if its not what they want they might explain how bringing in tens of millions of new leftist voters will lead towards policies that they do want. I've made this challenge before and it has gone unmet, so I'll extend the invitation to you. Would you care put up a blog refuting this?

My point was this

I'm not saying that on the whole the fence is a net negative among all voters, but it seems pretty clear that the immigration debate was a net loser for Republicans among Mexican voters.

I'm not advocating for open borders, I'm just pointing out that the position on the immigration bill is a likely reason why Bonilla lost support in the predominately Mexican populated counties, while it remained more steady in the Anglo counties.

I think that there are places where the debate helps us. I don't think Peter Roskam could have been elected in IL-6 without his well publicized opposition to and his opponent's support of McCain-Kennedy. Similarly, Steve Chabot and Jim Gerlach's reelection campaigns were helped by making that same distinction.

A hard like position on immigration isn't a cut and dry winner politically, though. The defeat yesterday is a reminder of that.

Whether or not it is a winner politically surely depends on your politics. A "hard line" position has certain implications for politics in this country, as does an "open borders" position.

As I say above, its quite possible that we can indeed win the majority of the Hispanic vote, if we adapt much more liberal or left wing policies. Is that an acceptable price to pay? Is any price not acceptable?

But there is also the problem that 1) the GOP has no major accomplishments in the last cycle. No SS reform. No immigration reform. No tax reform. No stopping Iran's nuclear program. The biggest event was the appointment of 2 SC judges which is great but not going to win over a bunch of indies and persuadables. And 2) Spending, porking, and corruption has been horrible. Most Americans think Democrats would be better on the budget, better on spending, and better on fighting corruption. Finally, the public seems to think 3) that Republicans are emphasizing social issues over fiscal ones. The quick action in the Schiavo incident compared to the lack of any vote on tax reform or SS reform is quite noticeable. And many swinger voters who used to think the Rs were fiscally responsible now think they are irresponsible and focused on culture wars.

It may take several cycles to undo the harm that has been done by Big Government Conservatism.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

is part of the problem. But part of what you list can also be attributed to the President's passivity.

No SS reform: The President gave up when he encountered resistence. When his proposals, admittedly sketchy, were attacked and misrepresented by the left, he didn't clarify, he didn't provide details, he didn't go on the road to fight for reform, he just gave up.

On fighting corruption: The Democrats ooze corruption. When William Jefferson was caught with $90K in his freezer, the President didn't back his own justice department's raid on Jefferson's Congressional office, but caved to Speaker Hastert's absurd defense of Jefferson's congressional "rights." He froze the documents taken in the raid, legitimizing Hastert's claims, and in the process helping to turn what was a Democratic scandal into a Republican scandal.

Schiavo: I'm a strong backer of the Culture of Life. I'm one of those people who got on the phone and forced Congress to engage in an 11th hour attempt to save Schiavo's life. The media engaged in a shameful propaganda campaign to make an attempt to keep a woman from being starved and dehydrated to death into a case of busybodying. Saving her life was not only the right thing to do, it could have been good politics if the Republicans and Bush had stuck to their guns. But he did nothing after signing the bill, didn't have his justice department try to keep her alive, didn't articulate his reasons for signing the bill. He just surrendered to the media, which is his SOP.

Iran: One of the reasons the President has been so hesitant on Iran, I think, is because of how pummelled he's been for invading Iraq. But one of the reasons he's been so pummelled is because he has made little or no effort to clarify disinformation regarding Iraq. Look how quickly he pulled back from the claim that Saddam had made overtures to Nigeria to bolster his nuclear program, when in fact they were true, just because the media didn't like them. Rather than sticking to his guns, he helped bolster claims the administration had misrepresented the Iraq threat. He's been hesitant to publicize links to Saddam and terror. He didn't back Santorum up when he went public on WMDs found in Iraq. He appointed a special prosecutor to pursue ridiculous claims that his administration had tried to "out" Joe Wilson's wife. By not challenging the media, but in fact almost helping to bolter their case against him, he has helped to create the image that he deceived the American people about Iraq.

On immigration reform, I agree that the lack of action there hurt the Republicans. But interestingly, there the President has been very aggressive in pursuing a plan totally destructive to our border security and in a way destructive to any future Republican majority. But the winds of media bias are blowing with him rather than against him on this one, and that seems somehow to give him a confidence he rarely shows when he's on the other side of the media bias. Anyway, the Republicans should have passed a plan while they could, because now the President will pursue his amnesty program in cooperation with the Democrats, and the results aren't going to be good for the country or future Republican majorities.

I can accept that you are against Big Government Conservatism but if you don't think the Schiavo matter was Big Government then you are just cherry picking the problems Conservatives had.

Schiavo, to me not Katrina, was the start of the Republicans problems. Yes Republicans energized the religious base but sent shockwaves through the rest of the Republican party and Independents. Schiavo was a family affair and was a debate on whether or not Terry Schiavo wanted to live in a vegitative state or not. It turned into a debate against Euthanasi. Republicans held a special session just to pass the Schiavo bill which again later hurt the Republican Party because it was perceived, rightly or wrongly, that Republicans were worried more about Schiavo and Religious issues than anything else. Schiavo was big government period. Any attempts to label it different is just trying to silly.

Next we have been talking about Immigration Reform in this post and at least some people agree with me that the perceived hatred of Hispanics hurt the Republican party a lot, especially in this special election.

I commend Bush for trying to do something about SS even though I do worry about his plan. Problem was is that hurt him with Seniors.

Finally brings you back to Katrina which made Bush seem incompentant, again rightly or wrongly, in the eyes of many people.

All these things just added up slowly to kill the Republican Party in November. Schiavo lost the moderate liberal North East Republicans, SS lost Republicans in Florida, Katrina hurt everywhere, and then Republicans still had corruption which hurt in a vast number of states. Things add up slowly in politics and if parties don't be careful it can really come back to bite

... on the head. I think your analysis is perfect (I suppose that's because I agree) but so many folks on the right can't yet see that these are the real reasons for voters swinging to Dems this election.

For example: the response to you that thinks that Bush did not do enough in the Schiavo case, when clearly the public thinks that Bush etc. should have kept their noses out of that family's business. That poster's wrongheaded analysis, if followed by Republicans, will only result in more losses.

When the voters say you're wrong then you're gone. And honest analysis of the problems, and corrections, will be needed to get back in office.

with everything you said, except that I don't think R's need to court the swinger vote. Also, the porcine gerund was funny, too. Thanks for the smiles, always in short supply.

I'm currently in San Antonio. Mostly I've stayed on base at Fort Sam Houston, but when I've driven into town over the last three weeks, I've seen almost no campaign signs. I heard not one conversation about this race. I didn't see any evidence of political passion at all, except TV ads. I suspect that after November, many voters figured the outcome of this race didn't matter.

Joe

As evidenced by the person who spoke that view being banned tonight.

but i'm quite certain the word 'burkah' had nothing to do with the banning. be serious.

Having tasted a life wasted, I ain't ever going back again.
-E.V.

Not the usage of the word burkah, but the insinuation that the election of one congressman from Texas would have people wearing burkahs probably wasn't helpful for the long term health of the person's account.

And I didn't mean my original response to echo the post it is responding to as much as it reads like it is. I was aiming to be a little more sarcastic.

I don't at all feel like Bonilla should have lost, as I pointed out up thread when I said I hoped he could win the seat back in two years.

I think a strategist may have automatically assumed scheduling a vote on a sacred holiday would depress turnout. Instead, this may have angered a number of Latinos, who went to vote for Rodriguez, and since they were at church for part of the day, met up with fellow voters and convinced them to go along.

Hmmm...it makes sense. I wonder if there's any anecdotal evidence or data to that effect...

...though unilateral Democratic control after 1992 did no good for Wyche Fowler in his runoff against Paul Coverdell.