posted June 07, 2006 12:11 PM            

A former Republican congressman narrowly beat his Democratic rival early Wednesday for the right to fill the House seat once held by jailed Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a race closely watched as a possible early barometer of next fall's vote.

Republican Brian Bilbray emerged victorious after a costly and contentious special election race against Democrat Francine Busby, a local school board member.

With 90 percent of precincts reporting, Bilbray had 56,130 votes, or 50 percent. Busby trailed with 51,292 votes, or 45 percent. "I think that we're going back to Washington," Bilbray told cheering supporters.
**Whoops..50% to 45% is hardly a narrow victory...except in leftist Associated Press circles.

The race - one of dozens of contests Tuesday in eight states - was viewed by Democrats as an opportunity to capture a solidly Republican district and build momentum on their hopes to capture control of the House.

Also in California, State Treasurer Phil Angelides narrowly beat Controller Steve Westly in the state's gubernatorial primary. He next faces GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who faced no credible opposition in his party's nomination.

With 90 percent of precincts reporting, Angelides had 918,810 votes, or 48 percent, to Westly's 840,630 votes, or 44 percent.

"You've given me a chance to fight for you, for the California of our dreams, and I will not let you down," Angelides said while his supporters chanted, "Go, Phil, go!"

The race proved long on negative ads and short on excitement and attention, giving the Republican governor a timely lift as he publicly launches his re-election drive Wednesday.

Elsewhere, Alabama Gov. Bob Riley easily beat back a GOP primary challenge from Ten Commandments judge Roy Moore, while Democratic former Gov. Don Siegelman - who campaigned while on trial on corruption charges - lost his comeback fight against Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley. Also in Alabama, voters passed a ban on gay marriage by a 4-to-1 margin.

Riley said voters saw state government has changed while he has been in office. "People appreciated the difference in the level of corruption we had in the past and the corruption we don't have today," he said. His challenger, Moore, the former state chief justice who became a hero to the religious right in 2003 when he was ousted after refusing to remove the Commandments monument from the state judicial building, said: "God's will has been done."

Baxley is trying to become Alabama's second female governor and the first elected in her own right. Alabama's first woman governor, Lurleen Wallace, was elected in 1966 as a stand-in for her husband.

"There was a time in this state when I could not have stood here, in spite of how hard I worked, because of gender. Tonight proves that is gone forever," Baxley told cheering supporters.

Another Washington corruption case figured in Montana's primary, where GOP Sen. Conrad Burns won the nomination for a fourth term. After his ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff became known, Burns saw his popularity fall. But he beat several primary challengers and won nearly three-quarters of the vote. His Democratic challenger in the fall will be state Senate President Jon Tester.
**Whoops...leftists and the leftist press had Conrad Burns down in the toast column

In Iowa, the retirement of two-term Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack set off a wide-open race. Secretary of State Chet Culver will face GOP Rep. Jim Nussle in the fall.

Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico and South Dakota also held primaries. Corruption and allegations of corruption - in California, Alabama and Montana - crisscrossed the country. Immigration was a campaign issue from the South to the Plains.

Still, the biggest race was the one to replace Cunningham, who was sentenced to eight years in prison for taking bribes on a scale unparalleled in the history of Congress.

National Democrats spent nearly $2 million on the race; the GOP spent $4.5 million. President Bush and first lady Laura Bush recorded telephone messages for Bilbray, while the Democrats' last two presidential candidates - John Kerry and Al Gore - urged supporters to back Busby.
**Whoops, looks like the dud duo of leftist speak don't have the pull leftists think they do

Bilbray, made immigration the centerpiece of his campaign, proposing a fence "from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico" and restrictions to keep illegal immigrants from collecting Social Security and other benefits.

Busby focused her campaign on public dissatisfaction with the Bush administration and the GOP-led Congress, and assailed Bilbray for working as a lobbyist in Washington. She consistently referred to him as "the lobbyist Bilbray."
**Whoops, did I mention running a "NOT BUSH" campaign was a dead bang loser?

In New Jersey, Republicans chose Tom Kean Jr., the son of a popular former governor, to challenge Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez in the fall.

A few races brought back some familiar names:

Jerry Brown - the former California governor, presidential candidate and current Oakland mayor - won the Democratic primary for attorney general.
Governor Moonbeam strikes again

George C. Wallace Jr., son of the former Alabama governor, trailed in the GOP primary for lieutenant governor to attorney Luther Strange but the race goes to a runoff because no one got 50 percent.

posted June 07, 2006 12:31 PM            

quote:

---

**Whoops...leftists and the leftist press had Conrad Burns down in the toast column

---

You say this to him winning a primary? I think it's humorous that you celebrate the victory of a guy with ties to Abramoff. Just the kind of Republican you guys need, right?

quote:

---

**Whoops, looks like the dud duo of leftist speak don't have the pull leftists think they do

**Whoops, did I mention running a "NOT BUSH" campaign was a dead bang loser?

---

posted June 07, 2006 01:55 PM            

Whoops!

Test ran their NOT BUSH campaign strategy and it fell flat on it's face.

Whoops!

Now, democrats will have to come up with some ideas not straight out of the Karl Marx playbook...class envy and class warfare. But those are the only ideas in democrat playbooks.

Whoops!

Even their Marxist preschool initiative failed in a blowout...in leftist land, no less.

posted June 07, 2006 04:14 PM            

Since you like it so much I'll let you in on some more:

quote:

---

In 2004, Busby lost the CA-50 by 22.0%. Today, it looks like she will lose by around 4.5%. And that was with the NRCC spending $4.5M on the race. If Republicans want to spin losing 18 points after spending $4.5M of committee money as a good thing, go for it. After all, spin is basically why they spent so much money on this race. By blowing their wad in a solidly Republican district, they wanted to change the media narrative on the election in their favor. It will probably work, given how subservient and generally inaccurate the media tends to be when it comes to Republicans and elections. In reality, for a Republican candidate to pull 49.5% of the vote in a district with 44.5% Republican registration is shocking. Given those numbers, Bilbray probably managed all of 20% of the vote among independents.

Of the 15 million dollars spent in the April and June elections, Democrats spent 4.7 million. 10 million dollars for a single digit lead in one of the most GOP districts in the country? Even the GOP doesn't have the kind of money to do that everywhere in the country. http://blogs.chron.com/kuffsworld/2006/06/busby_falls_short.html

---

Also, you're relying on NewsMax to tell you what her campaign was about. If you think it was merely NOT BUSH, then I think you'd be mistaken. Here's her site, you can read about her stances: http://www.busbyforcongress.com/

posted June 07, 2006 04:17 PM            

Voter Registration in CA-50:
Democratic 29.7%
Republican 44.4 %
DTS 21.5% [ed. note: DTS = Declined To State]
Minor 3.9 %

posted June 07, 2006 04:22 PM            

Yeah, let's see how they would react having a ton of illegals run through their backyards:

'Culture of Corruption' Failed Democrats in House Race

by Robert Novak
Posted Jun 07, 2006

For all the hype and the money spent on the race between former Rep. Brian Bilbray (R) and Francine Busby (D), Busby, in her loss to Bilbray, failed to exceed significantly the percentage won here by John Kerry in 2004. This is significant, because although she will have another shot at Bilbray in November, the turnout should have favored her yesterday, since Republicans had no other races to drive their turnout and Democrats had a gubernatorial primary.

The outcome proves that even with corrupt former Republican Rep. Duke Cunningham’s name fresh in the news, low turnout, a weak candidate like Bilbray and dissension within the GOP ranks (that led to negative Republican campaigning against Bilbray), Democrats cannot win here. Even here, where it should have mattered most, the “culture of corruption” mantra wasn’t enough to convince voters to pull the Democratic lever.

The decisive issue in this race was clearly immigration, with Busby taking President Bush’s side against Bilbray’s anti-amnesty hard line. She cost herself support with a careless remark -- taken out of context -- soliciting illegal-alien volunteers for her campaign at a Hispanic voter event, which sounded like she was encouraging illegal voting.

posted June 07, 2006 04:31 PM            

It's Immigration, Stupid
by
Posted Jun 07, 2006

The Democrats lost in San Diego last night in a special election many thought they would win. After all, the race was to fill a seat left vacant by a Republican congressman who had to resign when he pled guilty of corruption. President Bush’s approval rating in a California Field Poll this week is around 28% percent (the lowest in that poll’s history since just before President Nixon resigned in 1974). And in the first round of voting, the Democrat, Francine Busby got 44% of the vote and the Republican Brian Bilbray, a former congressman, led a big field of Republicans with only 15% of the vote.

But with 96% of the vote reported, Brian Bilbray has 49.48% of the vote and the Democrat has 45.28% (there are two minor candidates). With a margin of almost 5,000 votes, Bilbray seems certain to win.

So what happened? Why was the Democrat only able to go from 44% to 45%? How did the Republican go from 15% to victory?

Here’s the bottom line: A conservative reform-candidate won in San Diego last night. The result of this election speaks volumes about what will succeed and what will fail for Republicans this November.

This Could Have Been an Unpleasant Morning

Had the Democrats won, this would be a morning of giddy excitement for Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean. Their allies in Washington and across the country would have been energized and Republicans would have been panic stricken. House Minority Leader Pelosi would be on the phone to every major donor explaining what their victory meant and why it justified more resources for the fall campaign. The left’s columnists and pundits would have filled the airwaves and the newspaper and magazines with predictions of imminent Republican disaster. The DCCC chairman, Congressman Rahm Emanuel, would be on television this morning claiming a harbinger for the fall election. The elite media would have been thrilled at the prospect of a Republican loss of the House this fall. We would have heard the phrase “bellwether election” over and over this morning on the morning shows.

Instead, we had almost no coverage.

They lost.

This is now a fact.

It is a big fact.

I have lived through this kind of cycle. In 1994, there were two special elections in which Republicans gained Democratic seats. The first was in Oklahoma with Frank Lucas. The second was in Kentucky with Ron Lewis. On the night of the first victory, Congressman Bill Paxon (the NRCC chairman), Joe Gaylord (our planner and adviser) and I sat at the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee) headquarters and decided to go for broke in the much more difficult Kentucky seat. We knew that if we could win two Democratic seats going into the fall election we would create an excitement that would arouse money and energy from our supporters, interest from the news media, and make a fall victory more likely.

It was a courageous decision on Bill Paxon’s part because it meant we were going to invest a lot of our resources into trying to ignite a wave of enthusiasm. It worked. Those two victories were dramatic steps toward the Contract with America and the 53-seat sweep in the fall, which gave us a GOP majority in the House for the first time in 40 years.

How We Won

I know Brian Bilbray. Brian Bilbray was with me in Washington at the beginning of the 104th Congress and was key to implementing the needed reforms of the Contract with America. Yesterday, Brian Bilbray won with a similar agenda of real change. The three dynamics that drove the outcome of this election are all consistent with the pattern of real change outlined in my new paperback edition of Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America.

The first was a determined effort by Brian Bilbray to talk about controlling spending, changing Washington and controlling the border and illegal immigration. Bilbray did not run to “stay the course” and help Washington; Bilbray ran to change Washington. He ran to return to the spirit of 1994 and the Contract with America.

The second was a steady drumbeat by talk radio and the NRCC and the Bilbray campaign to define Francine Busby as a liberal who would raise taxes, increase welfare, and favor amnesty. This had worked well enough that by last Thursday the race was tied 45% to 45% in a public poll. She had gained one point and Bilbray had gained 30 during the runoff.

The third (and most fascinating) was an enormous revelation by the Democrat. At a rally, someone told her (in Spanish) that they were for her but were undocumented (meaning they were in the United States illegally). Ms. Busby responded by suggesting that it was OK for a person in the United States illegally to be active in her campaign. Unfortunately for her candidacy, a Minuteman volunteer in the audience caught her words on tape and gave it to San Diego talk radio hosts. The following day, her willingness to pander to non-citizens became the centerpiece of the campaign and she was on defense for the last five days until the election.

The Democrat explained that she did not mean what she said but her words dramatically focused the difference between a liberal Democrat supporting amnesty and the conservative reform candidate who believes Americans have a right to secure borders. She could not undo the power of her words on tape urging a non-citizen to be active in an American election. It is possible that after Ms. Busby’s comments every undecided voter decided for Bilbray.

There are three big lessons to be learned from the dynamics that drove this election.

Independence and a willingness to stand up for the folks back home overcame President Bush’s low approval rating. Ultimately, 2006 is not a presidential election and it will not be a referendum on the President if Republicans go home and do their job of representing the values and concerns of the people who elect them.

Fighting to control the border and defend the American people on illegal immigration (the House position) really works. Amnesty (the Senate bill) was clearly repudiated by Republican voters.

However dissatisfied Republican voters are with Washington, when they realize the Democrat is a Nancy Pelosi-Howard Dean liberal they turn against them. This means that Republican candidates this fall must be prepared to make their liberal Democrat opponents bear the burden of their positions. The Democrats cannot be allowed to hide their ideology. Remember, the Democrat had 44% in the first round and Bilbray had 15%. Busby couldn’t break out beyond her liberal base. She was simply too liberal.
This can be the story again and again this fall. Republicans are not perfect but liberal Democrats are unacceptable as an alternative.

Finally, people should also note that Congressman Tom Reynolds and his team at the NRCC did their job when it really mattered. They won. By contrast, despite all the recent positive press, the DCCC chairman Congressman Rahm Emanuel and his team invested a lot of resources and lost.

Speaker Dennis Hastert and his team should have a more energetic step the rest of this week.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and her team should have a little less energy.

Now let’s see how the elite media attempts to avoid covering this result.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

Mr. Gingrich is the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and author of "Winning the Future" (published by Regnery, a HUMAN EVENTS sister company). Click here to get his free Winning the Future e-mail newsletter.

posted June 07, 2006 07:04 PM            

My first post, which was accurate, was simply based on Jwhop's NewsMax post. It doesn't take much of a critical eye coupled with some common sense to come to the same conclusion that I did. I grew up in conservative Orange County myself that's part of the reason I instictively knew that Randy Cunningham has been in office for that district for so long. A Republican winning a Republican district doesn't surprise me, and it shouldn't surprise anyone.

Maybe I should break down one of the arguments from the east coast Republicans for you:

quote:

---

The Democrats lost in San Diego last night in a special election many thought they would win. After all, the race was to fill a seat left vacant by a Republican congressman who had to resign when he pled guilty of corruption. President Bush’s approval rating in a California Field Poll this week is around 28% percent (the lowest in that poll’s history since just before President Nixon resigned in 1974). And in the first round of voting, the Democrat, Francine Busby got 44% of the vote and the Republican Brian Bilbray, a former congressman, led a big field of Republicans with only 15% of the vote.

---

Understand what I've highlighted in bold. Brian Bilbray led a big field of Republicans with only 15% of the vote. What we garner from this is that the Republican vote was split amongst a "big field" of Republican candidates.

quote:

---

So what happened? Why was the Democrat only able to go from 44% to 45%? How did the Republican go from 15% to victory?

---

Simple. Republicans consolidated their voting into one candidate instead of several.

That is a perfect example of spin. Someone takes the available information and re-orders it so that it appears to say something that is actually untrue. Brian Bilbray didn't go from 15% [or being behind] to victory. He lead the pack and then won the election.

posted June 07, 2006 08:11 PM            

The thing was - no one was buying it. In a similar way we saw the predominantly Democrat state of Maryland turn around and voted for and put in office Erhlich and Steele (Steels is damn good man and I hope he runs for Senator).

The thing is it could have been done- it should have been done even with the pushing of "hey let's get the corrupt out of office".

posted June 07, 2006 08:56 PM            

quote:

---

Bilbray didn't have much in the way of backing regardless of his being Republican.

---

How do you figure? $4.5 million from the GOP, a primarily Republican electorate, and a history of Republican wins in the district. His campaign got fully 45% of the total disbursement from the GOP. What more backing did he need?

quote:

---

Pubbies didn't need to turn out but still did

---

Why didn't they need to turn out? Republicans know how to get out the vote when it's critical, and this was deemed critical by many, so I still don't get you.

quote:

---

The thing was - no one was buying it.

---

posted June 08, 2006 03:23 PM            

California Republican Brian Bilbray, who on Tuesday defeated a Democrat whom he had trailed in polls for weeks to win an open House seat, credited his comeback to his tough stance on immigration, which mirrors the stern House bill that would reject any sort of amnesty for illegal aliens.
Conservatives, including potential presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, called the election results a clear repudiation of the Senate bill on immigration, which would offer the 11 million illegal aliens in the United States what amounts to amnesty.
"To the Bush administration, to the Senate, flat out: My opponent ran on your ticket on amnesty; I ran against it, on no amnesty," Mr. Bilbray said on San Diego's KOGO radio Tuesday night. "The message ought to be that now, and here, is the time to take care of this problem. ... What don't you get about the word 'illegal?'?"
Mr. Bilbray strayed so far from the Republicans' Washington leadership that Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who is one of the main authors of the Senate immigration bill, canceled a fundraiser last week for him after the candidate publicly attacked Mr. McCain's plan to grant what some see as amnesty to illegals.
The victory is a rebuke of President Bush's call for a "guest-worker" program, which would let illegal aliens remain in the country while they apply for citizenship. Mr. Bush regularly says he opposes amnesty but has backed the Senate bill's approach to immigration, which offers a "path to citizenship" for illegals, over the House's "security only" proposals.
Mr. Gingrich said yesterday in a column that the California election proves that "fighting to control the border and defend the American people on illegal immigration (the House position) really works. Amnesty (the Senate bill) was clearly repudiated by Republican voters."
"Look, you've had one election since the Senate bill passed," Mr. Gingrich told The Washington Times yesterday. "You had a person who was pro-illegal immigrant and pro-amnesty; she lost. You had a person who was for controlling the border and against amnesty; he won. In any city in the world except Washington, that would be a hint.
"What the Bilbray campaign proved was, this stuff's real."
The White House immediately downplayed the results in California's strongly Republican 50th District, where Mr. Bilbray ran on the campaign slogan: "Proven Tough on Illegal Immigration."
"In a case like this, everybody was trying to look for a bellwether," said Bush spokesman Tony Snow. "Look, it was a close and tight race all along."
Francine Busby easily finished first in the April nonpartisan primary, winning 44 percent of the vote, while Mr. Bilbray, a former congressman, finished second with just 15 percent of the vote. In the special election, Mr. Bilbray got 48.5 percent, while Mrs. Busby bettered her share in the first round of voting by just one percentage point.
The election splashed onto front pages and flashed onto conservative Internet sites and talk radio over the weekend after Mrs. Busby took a question from a Hispanic man during a campaign event last Thursday.

"I want to help, but I don't have papers," the man said in Spanish.
After a translation of the question, the Democrat replied, "Everybody can help, yeah, absolutely, you can all help. You don't need papers for voting, you don't need to be a registered voter to help."
Her statement created a firestorm that drove the conservative base in the district to the polls, Mr. Gingrich said.
"There was a real danger that Republicans would stay home because they were irritated with Washington, and you'll notice the polls showed Bush at 28 percent," he said. "Her comments, which were caught on audiotape by a volunteer and played on talk radio, just stopped her campaign in its tracks."
Democrats were virtually mute yesterday on the 50th District's election. It took the Democratic National Committee chairman until 4:42 p.m. to put out a statement on the loss.
"Even in California's 50th Congressional District, where Democrats are outnumbered by 50,000 and Republicans spent $5 million to defeat her, Francine Busby impressed the country by coming within 5,000 votes of capturing a solidly Republican seat," Howard Dean said.
That mirrored an e-mail to Democrats earlier in the day from Sen. John Kerry, titled "Don't Blink, Don't Back Down."
"Their claims of momentum are as phony as their claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," said the liberal Massachusetts senator, who lost to Mr. Bush in the 2004 presidential election. The rest of the e-mail was dedicated to races in the November elections.
The Democratic National Committee did not return phone calls seeking additional comment.
Mr. Bilbray will serve out the remaining seven months in the term of former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, now in jail for taking bribes while in Congress. On the same ballot as the special election, Mr. Bilbray and Mrs. Busby won their respective primaries for the regularly scheduled two-year term and so will face off again in November.

posted June 08, 2006 03:43 PM            

Are you surprised the California Republican got only 15% of the primary vote...with so many Republicans in the primary race? If you are surprised, why are you surprised?

Are you suggesting a reason the democrat didn't improve her numbers in the election...over her primary numbers? Did you think some of those Republicans were going to vote for the democrat...when their Republican candidate lost in the primary?

Or, are you suggesting the election was rigged and that's the reason the democrat lost?

The DNC and democrats everywhere viewed this House election as a preview of things to come in the November elections. They lost and now there's a hell of a lot of spinning going on. Pure and simple, the democrats lost and that's not a positive sign for November.

In House races across the country, democrats thought they had an opportunity to knock off Republicans in Republican districts. I think that's wishful thinking...in most cases.

posted June 08, 2006 03:53 PM            

quote:

---

So acoustic, which democrat primary...where there are multiple democrat candidates...say 5 to 8 vying for the nomination would you like to examine to see what their primary winning percentage happened to be?

---

Huh?

quote:

---

Are you surprised the California Republican got only 15% of the primary vote...with so many Republicans in the primary race? If you are surprised, why are you surprised?

---

Did I express surprise? He got 15% in a large field of candidates and was the victor of the primary. I didn't say anything different.

quote:

---

Are you suggesting a reason the democrat didn't improve her numbers in the election...over her primary numbers? Did you think some of those Republicans were going to vote for the democrat...when their Republican candidate lost in the primary?

---

Obviously no. I'm kind of stunned by what you're asking, because I think I explained it pretty clearly. Once the Republicans had just one person to vote for, they did just that... and he won. Like I said, he consolidated the Republican vote. However, Gingrich's statement was completely misleading. He didn't go from 15% to victory. He went from the largest percentage of the Republican vote to consolidating the total Republican vote, which made him victorious.

quote:

---

Or, are you suggesting the election was rigged and that's the reason the democrat lost?

---

I made no such claims. I'm sure it was a completely hum-drum election for them. The Republican district went out and voted Republican. What's extraordinary about that?

quote:

---

The DNC and democrats everywhere viewed this House election as a preview of things to come in the November elections. They lost and now there's a hell of a lot of spinning going on. Pure and simple, the democrats lost and that's not a positive sign for November.

---

It's not a sign of anything. People are trying to spin it, but the only REAL piece of spinnable news coming out of this election is that a Democrat got 45% of the vote in a district that's voted Republican at least 8 times previously, and she did it spending less than half the money. That's the only news worthy bit about the election. The rest is all extremely normal.

posted June 08, 2006 04:12 PM            

quote:

---

In 2004, Busby lost the CA-50 by 22.0%. Today, it looks like she will lose by around 4.5%....acoustic

---

In 2004, Busby lost to a very popular Congressman..Cunningham. Yet you want to think she picked up 18 points on the strength of "the culture of corruption" ranted about by democrats. The Republican was much less known and an unknown quality to many.

She picked up 18 points because lots of Republicans didn't vote AND because democrats did vote..mainly because of democrat initiatives on the ballot and because of elections in state offices affecting democrats...including a democrat gubernatorial primary.

That won't be the case in November.

BTW, this wasn't a primary, this was an election for the House Seat.

posted June 08, 2006 04:24 PM            

quote:

---

The Republican was much less known and an unknown quality to many.

---

That didn't stop him from winning his primary, getting GOP money, and getting elected. That continues to be a really poor argument.

quote:

---

She picked up 18 points because lots of Republicans didn't vote AND because democrats did vote..mainly because of democrat initiatives on the ballot and because of elections in state offices affecting democrats...including a democrat gubernatorial primary.

---

Obviously Republicans DID vote as evidenced by the win. Do you have any argument of substance?

quote:

---

BTW, this wasn't a primary, this was an election for the House Seat.

---

No kidding. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

quote:

---

In that primary race where Busby got 44% of the vote, how many other democrats were in that primary race?

---

posted June 08, 2006 04:55 PM            

BTW, I'm the one who said the Republican was a less known candidate and an unknown quality. A true statement.

If Republicans had turned out for this election, it would have been a typical Republican blowout in that district. The Republican won in spite of the low Republican turnout.

So, you are expecting a democrat retaking of the House and Senate in November?

Get over it, the democrat lost The Republican won, will fill out the remainder of the House term and will more than likely win again in the November election.

posted June 08, 2006 06:09 PM            

quote:

---

Is Newt Gingrich the person you're identifying as a "blogger"?

---

If I could figure out what planet you're coming from maybe I could address this. So far, though, your posts today are incredibly [I hesitate to say it] stupid.

quote:

---

BTW, I'm the one who said the Republican was a less known candidate and an unknown quality. A true statement.

---

A former congressman who won his primary is a lesser known candidate? I don't know how you propose to prove that, but either way it's immaterial.

quote:

---

If Republicans had turned out for this election, it would have been a typical Republican blowout in that district. The Republican won in spite of the low Republican turnout.

---

Like I said, Republicans turned out. Not sure why you're trying to negate that. There's nothing to win by negating that.

quote:

---

So, you are expecting a democrat retaking of the House and Senate in November?

---

I haven't placed any expectation on that seat. There's really no reason to. How many times do I have to tell you guys that IT'S A REPUBLICAN DISTRICT. There's no story there. A republican won a Republican district. Do I need to repeat it 100 times before it penetrates?

quote:

---

Get over it, the democrat lost The Republican won, will fill out the remainder of the House term and will more than likely win again in the November election.

---

Get over it? That's funny. I spend two days explaining to two Republicans the obvious reasons why a Republican won and I need to get over it? I didn't start this thread. This is your retardedly celebratory thread about how a Republican won a Republican district that has now voted a Republican into office 9 times in a row. Whoopee! I'm only here to try to cast some reality into some thick skulls.

quote:

---

Something I didn't mention. John McCain had a campaign stop planned for the Republican...but canceled when Bilbray came out against the McCain amnesty for illegals plan. Further, that cut him off from White House and RNC support as well.

---

posted June 08, 2006 06:27 PM            

If you don't give a damn one way or the other, why continue?

The facts are simple. The democrat lost and the Republican won. Democrats had great hopes and expectations of a win but they lost. Democrats pinned their hopes on retaking the House on the outcome of this election as a barometer of things to come. Democrats lost.

End of the story.

posted June 08, 2006 07:41 PM            

quote:

---

If you don't give a damn one way or the other, why continue?

---

Why continue indeed? I guess because you and Pid seem to want to make this appear to be some great and surprising victory when nothing supports that.

quote:

---

The facts are simple. The democrat lost and the Republican won.

---

This much is true. I'll even go so far as to allow you to say that Democrats had hoped to win.

quote:

---

Democrats pinned their hopes on retaking the House on the outcome of this election as a barometer of things to come.

---

posted June 08, 2006 08:06 PM            

IF democrat calculations that their mantra of a Republican culture of corruption, a charge made over and over by democrats and repeated in the leftist press wouldn't fly in the vacated district of a Republican who pleaded guilty to bribery charges and is currently in prison, it isn't going to fly anywhere.