Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 49
  1. #21  
    Senior Member malloc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Queen Creek, AZ
    Posts
    2,160
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    It is a general reference to the anti-Hispanic feelings in Arizona. It refers specifically to SB 1070 but is meant as an metaphor to the hostility to Hispanics in that state. And before you start the whole "No! Just illegals!" charade, keep in mind there is a movement to deny Americans a birth certificate in that state because they were squeezed out of the wrong crotch.
    Unfortunately facts stand in the way of your hypothesis. SB 1070 is hugely popular in Arizona. Even if all legal Hispanics oppose 1070, which they don't, the Republican nominee, could still win on tougher border enforcement alone. Opposing open borders and illegal immigration is a campaign winner in AZ, as has been demonstrated by the 2010 gubernatorial and state legislative elections.

    The fact is that Arizonan's, even legal Arizonan's of Latin American descent, want stricter border control and an end to the tide of illegals flooding through the Tuscon corridor.
    "In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."
    —Thomas Paine, Common Sense
     

  2. #22  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Quote Originally Posted by malloc View Post
    Unfortunately facts stand in the way of your hypothesis. SB 1070 is hugely popular in Arizona. Even if all legal Hispanics oppose 1070, which they don't, the Republican nominee, could still win on tougher border enforcement alone. Opposing open borders and illegal immigration is a campaign winner in AZ, as has been demonstrated by the 2010 gubernatorial and state legislative elections.

    The fact is that Arizonan's, even legal Arizonan's of Latin American descent, want stricter border control and an end to the tide of illegals flooding through the Tuscon corridor.
    Looks like it's Boo Hoo time for A.D.
     

  3. #23  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    BTW, John Ensign (R-Nevada) is reported to be retiring. The Link.

    That brings the Republicans up to three, Ensign, Kay Bailey (R-Texas), and Kyl (R-Arizona).
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    You've got Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and now, Nevada senate seats up for grabs.

    It might be a coincidence but the latest census numbers indicating a dramatic demographic shift in the American southwest may be in play. I would not assume the land of 1070 is an automatic Republican win at this point.
    Arizona and Texas are highly unlikely to go to Democrats, even in a year with Democratic sweeps. If Obama loses at the top of the ticket, expect his negative coattails to have impacts down the line. Nevada is in play only because of Reid, but I don't see that seat going Democrat either.
    Quote Originally Posted by fettpett View Post
    I don't see direct popular vote for Senators being that big of a problem, just the outside the state influences and money that are donated to them.
    The whole point of the senate was to have members who represented the will of their state governments and were not subject to electoral pressure. It was also one of the bits of genius of the founders, that every office holder was selected by people who were at least acquainted with him personally. That's one of the reasons for the electoral college, that a small group of electors could meet and address candidates with the concerns of their states. Senators were selected by their fellow state legislators, and they generally picked people that they respected. To put it another way, can you see Teddy Kennedy, Barack Obama or Patty Murray being selected by their legislatures to represent the interests of their states?
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
     

  4. #24  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    To put it another way, can you see Teddy Kennedy, Barack Obama or Patty Murray being selected by their legislatures to represent the interests of their states?
    yes....
     

  5. #25  
    Senior Member malloc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Queen Creek, AZ
    Posts
    2,160
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Arizona and Texas are highly unlikely to go to Democrats, even in a year with Democratic sweeps. If Obama loses at the top of the ticket, expect his negative coattails to have impacts down the line. Nevada is in play only because of Reid, but I don't see that seat going Democrat either.


    The whole point of the senate was to have members who represented the will of their state governments and were not subject to electoral pressure. It was also one of the bits of genius of the founders, that every office holder was selected by people who were at least acquainted with him personally. That's one of the reasons for the electoral college, that a small group of electors could meet and address candidates with the concerns of their states. Senators were selected by their fellow state legislators, and they generally picked people that they respected. To put it another way, can you see Teddy Kennedy, Barack Obama or Patty Murray being selected by their legislatures to represent the interests of their states?
    I'm definitely in the "repeal the XVIIth Amendment" camp. I believe that Amendment has done more to usurp our constitutional republic than any other. It's directly to blame for the erosion of State governments, and their tenancy to constantly acquiesce to any demand the Federal government makes. That being said, I don't see that amendment being repealed in my lifetime.
    "In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."
    —Thomas Paine, Common Sense
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Arizona and Texas are highly unlikely to go to Democrats, even in a year with Democratic sweeps.
    I agree. The demographic shift will take awhile longer in those two states. Also, Texas has not gotten the 1070 fever just yet. Although there was a funny thing recently where a member of our state legislature wanted to bring down heavy fines and jail time for those hiring illegal aliens (something I agree with .... start throwing some CEO's in jail and the demand will dry up quick) but wanted to exempt those who hire undocumented labor for maids, yard care, nannies, ect.

    Damn funny but shows you where the Republican head is on the issue here.

    If Obama loses at the top of the ticket, expect his negative coattails to have impacts down the line. Nevada is in play only because of Reid, but I don't see that seat going Democrat either.
    I don't see where Obama loses. I think the slim chance the Republicans had went up in a puff of smoke in Wisconsin when Walker awakened the sleeping Labor giant and filled it with a terrible resolve. The mid-west is now out of Republican reach.

    That aside, I still think the Republicans will take the Senate in 2012. But New Mexico and Nevada will be Democratic. As long as loons like Angle or that nut from Delaware aren't nominated, Arizona should be safe for Republicans.
     

  7. #27  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by fettpett View Post
    yes....
    No, think about it. When Teddy was elected to the Senate, he was a Harvard dropout who'd been caught cheating, a spoiled brat whose only claim to fame was two less embarrassing brothers. The Massachussetts legislature back then would not have bothered with him. Similarly, Obama has never impressed the people that he works with. The Illinois legislature wouldn't have selected someone whose sole distinction was the number of times that he'd voted "present" on the issues of the day. They might have sold the gig to the highest bidder, as Blago tried to do, but they wouldn't have just given it to a diletante. Patty Murray won an election as a woman in the year that Bob Packwood and Clarence Thomas gave Democrats a lever to shoehorn women into office, but she's dumber than a stump, and she'd never have impressed anyone in the legislature.

    Now, that's not to say that those states wouldn't have appointed liberal Democrats, but they wouldn't have been brain-dead, lazy, incompetent liberal Democrats.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    I agree. The demographic shift will take awhile longer in those two states. Also, Texas has not gotten the 1070 fever just yet. Although there was a funny thing recently where a member of our state legislature wanted to bring down heavy fines and jail time for those hiring illegal aliens (something I agree with .... start throwing some CEO's in jail and the demand will dry up quick) but wanted to exempt those who hire undocumented labor for maids, yard care, nannies, ect.

    Damn funny but shows you where the Republican head is on the issue here.

    I don't see where Obama loses. I think the slim chance the Republicans had went up in a puff of smoke in Wisconsin when Walker awakened the sleeping Labor giant and filled it with a terrible resolve. The mid-west is now out of Republican reach.

    That aside, I still think the Republicans will take the Senate in 2012. But New Mexico and Nevada will be Democratic. As long as loons like Angle or that nut from Delaware aren't nominated, Arizona should be safe for Republicans.
    You're overestimating Obama's appeal. The presidential election will be a referendum on Obama and the Republican will only have to demonstrate that he isn't as clueless as a community organizer. Current polling is just name recognition, as I said. When the campaign begins in earnest, Obama and Biden will be out stumping on their record, which includes the singular most unpopular piece of legislation since Prohibition, a completely blown foreign policy and an economy that is very likely to be in the second dip of a recession. Job growth has been nonexistent under Obama, and any Republican who is smart enough to ask Reagan's famous question, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" will be picking out patterns for the Oval Office come January 2013.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
     

  8. #28  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    They aren't. It was in the article. My point was that their motives were different. Lieberman would have been reelected, but didn't want to be in the miinority and lose his committee chairmanship, while Webb was looking at defeat. I suspect that Ben Nelson and a few others will also be making the decision to spend time with their families, or whatever the current euphemism is for running away like a scalded dog. The really interesting thing will be to see if Democrats in deeply blue states decide not to run. Akaka is one, of course, but if others who have solid reelection hopes decide to butt out, it will be a solid indicator that they expect to be in the minority and don't want to have to deal with it.


    Classic case of me not reading the title. Sorry about that.
    I long for the days when our President actually liked our country.
     

  9. #29  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    I am unsure why it is taking so long for the Senate to become Republican. It should be a solidly Republican body considering the 2 per state issue and the number of reliably Republican states in the nation.
    well gee - given that only 1/3 come up for election at a time - it's kinda hard to get huge changes in who runs the senate. Add to it that most of the Democrat Senators up for election the last round were basically very safe due to who stu- I mean blue :o their states are it's amazing that the GOP made gains at all. Given that this next bunch are far more competitive - well now . . . . :) I'm looking forward to seeing some changes. :)
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
     

  10. #30  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    It is a general reference to the anti-Hispanic feelings in Arizona. It refers specifically to SB 1070 but is meant as an metaphor to the hostility to Hispanics in that state. And before you start the whole "No! Just illegals!" charade, keep in mind there is a movement to deny Americans a birth certificate in that state because they were squeezed out of the wrong crotch.
    You mean because they were born to a foreign invader? Do you favor giving citizen status to the children of foreign invaders?
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •