Redstate

There's a difference between Cole giving money to a candidate and the NRCC endorsing them. Voters don't give a darn who Cole has given money to, and so long as special favors aren't given/withheld by the NRCC (research etc.) to one of the candidates, then he's not messing up anything.

"My heart was here...I feel like I have unfinished business here." - Roy Hibbert

Here's what Cole had to say about that:

“Cole also said that he will refrain from doling out personal endorsements and campaign contributions in primaries while he is chairman. Cole’s decision partly is due to the wishes of House Republicans, who in a recent closed-door meeting were fairly unified — and vocal — in their desire that the NRCC avoid playing kingmaker in contested primaries. But Cole also attributed his policy to a belief that candidates who navigate a primary without help or anointing from Washington, D.C., insiders emerge battle-tested for the general election and in a better position to secure the support of grass-roots Republicans.” (Roll Call, 2/5/07)

I don't like the NRCC or its Chairman getting involved in primaries, but some past Chairmen may disagree. That's perfectly legit. All I'm saying is that Cole should stay true to his word. I don't think that's too much to ask.

www.republicansenate.org

I continue to be proven wrong on this issue, and continue to fight it, probably because I have no problem with the committee backing what it perceives to be the stronger candidate.

My biggest problem so far with the various committees is the buttkicking we're receiving at the hands of the Democrats on the fundraising front.

"My heart was here...I feel like I have unfinished business here." - Roy Hibbert

Got 64% of the vote in Bobby Scott's district in 2004. I'm not sure how much the district changed in redistricting. I don't think it's going to be a targeted race though.

As far as Simmons goes, I was under the impression he wasn't going to try and retake his seat. It was a bad seat for Republicans to begin with...Kerry had 54% of the vote there in 2004.

"My heart was here...I feel like I have unfinished business here." - Roy Hibbert

....I know that TX-23 has a very large Hispanic population, and there are probably a good number of illegal immigrants, but.....illegal immigrations can't vote, and why would LEGAL immigrants/Hispanics who are either natural born citizens or earned their citizenship be in favor of amnesty?

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

...we don't do a good-enough job of selling it as being for the good of all Texans, regardless of ethnic group.

It would be easier to sell Hispanics on the GOP if the overall level of immigration were much lower. High immigration plays into the Democrats hands.

Some legal Hispanic immigrants are no doubt offended by pushes for amnesty. Some are no doubt indifferent and base their vote entirely on other issues. Some, however, will respond to the Left's demagoguery of the issue and buy into the false charges of xenophobia/racism/anti-immigrant leveled at Republicans. With Bonilla, I wouldn't be surprised if he were accused of being a traitor to his ethnicity.

This is the dilemma for Republicans; they can either accept a 'path to citizenship' for illegals and unending mass legal immigration and thus face near certain demographic doom as they engage in a futile attempt to win over ever-growing immigrant communities; or they can try to implement conservative immigration reform, in which case they will still face a daunting demographic challenge over the long-run, and will lose a significant amount of latino (and Asian too I would expect) support now as a result of the inevitable demagoguery.

That's what we get for allowing for decades an immigration policy -- legal and illegal -- that seems as if it were designed to import a Democratic majority and destroy the GOP.