Thread: 2008 Senate Republican Primary targets...

Everyone needs to keep in mind that there were three republican senators, up for re-election in 2008, that voted for final cloture of the revived amnesty bill 1639: Chuck Hagel (NE), Larry Craig (ID), and Lindsey Graham (SC).

All three of these traitors need to face political retribution and be replaced by better candidates in the primary. So far, i've only heard of one substantial campaign, and he is well on his way to defeating Mr. Hagel: Jon Bruning (NE)(jonbruning.com).

We need to help these challengers in any way possible, including financially. Any citizens out their from Idaho or South Carolina that know a well-qualified candidate we can get behind and support? It is imperative to improve these senators....

If these are republican areas, republicans need to clear these traitors in the primaries so any Lieing dems will not have a chance. That is not to say that a dem might not me be a better choice some have already proven themselves to be pro american worker.

And there is a mess of Democrats to get rid of in 2008. The Democrats are blocking the tough immigration ordinances. If you want tough immigration laws, you are going to have to get rid of them. Just as there are some "bad" Republicans, there are a few "good" Democrats and the rest of them are illegal alien supporters.

Joseph Biden (D) Delaware

Richard Durbin (D) Illinois

Tom Harkin (D) Iowa

John Kerry (D) Massachusetts

Carl Levin (D) Michigan

Frank Lautenberg (D) New Jersey

Jack Reed (D) Rhode Island

Senator Johnson is ill so he abstained.
Tim Johnson (D)South Dakota

Hillary and Obama avoided the vote! Who needs a president that can't make the tough decisions?

Dixie

This country cannot afford any more democrats!!!!!!! I agree these republicans must be removed from office, however, it is imperative they be replaced by new republicans.

To give the democrats more power will destroy this country. We MUST not let that happen. I believe.....democrats in control by only a vote or two majority, and a republican president, is our best bet.

There were a few "good" democrats, on the all important immigration issue i.e. Byron Dorgan (ND), Mary Landrieu (LA), John Rockefeller and Robert Byrd (WV)....However, we have very little chance of knocking of most of those democrat incumbents. Our best chance is to replace Sen. Johnson of (SD) and wait for the disgrace called Lautenberg to retire(though we should try in 200. Also, the tide in Michigan is changing!! Levin's end could be nearing soon God willing.

And yes, Obama and Hillary both ducked the vote, though we all know where they stand. It is crucial that those two open border, multiculturalists do not gain the power of the Presidency. 2008 is so crucial, republicans should gain in the House, but ALIPACians need to help upgrade or replace some senators to improve the Senate situation.

There is a concept in emergency medecin and that's to deal with "the worst first".

We are in a crisis and we need to deal firmly and quickly with the critical problems. Looking at the voting records on immigration, over all, it's the Democrats, with the exception of some Blue Dogs that are pushing for amnesty and benefits for illegal aliens.

Truth be told, I'm more southern Democrat than Republican in my thinking. I'm Conservative with some Democratic beliefs. I'm firmly against illegal immigration, and the Democratic Party is not so I will not cast a vote for one considering the current party stance.

Dixie

Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, was awesome during the debate that killed S 1639. "Follow the money!!!!!"

Our common goal is to oppose illegal immigration. It is imperative that we do that in a non-partisan manner. To be sure, I have fallen out of love with the Democratic Party, but there is nothing in the Republican Party to love either. We are better served to target those who are promoting illegal immigration without regard to party affiliation. Perhaps it will turn out that there will be a candidate who espouses a platform that we would want to support as a group, but it is dangerous to our mission to purposely set out to elect one party over the other. Our unity is in the fight against illegal immigration and our strength is in our fidelity to that single goal.

Very true...very true. This issue is far more important than partisan politics. In fact, it is a bipartisan issue. Both parties are fragmented on illegal immigration. Unity of those who opposed amnesty is the reason we prevailed. However, i think you would agree with this: It is far more acceptable for a Demcrat to support amnesty than it is for a Republican to.

Conservatives(not necessarily republicans) are closer to our belief system that amnesty must be opposed and borders need to be secured. That being said, i support the candidate that better protects America from illegal invasion of foreigners. If somebody like Senator Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota) or Representative Nacy Boyda (D-Kansas) ran as one of my constituents against the likes of amnesty supporters like Mel Martinez (R-Florida) or Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) , i would undoubtedly vote for the former because they protect our sovereignty and liberty.


In response to dealing with "the worst first," well i hope upon hope that a contender emerges to oppose their respective reelections, but it is a tall order none-the-less. ALIPAC needs to draft a bluedog democrat to primary the Durbins and the Kerrys if we have any chance of upgrading those spots.

I agree with your premise that Democratic office holders with their liberal bent are more naturally inclined to promote amnesty for illegal immigrants. The obvious reason is for cheap votes. However, the Republicans are no less dishonorable in their quest to use the illegal immigrants for cheap labor. This helps their big business cohorts and thereby creates a source for large political contributions. A pox on both of their houses.

I also agree that if two candidates are in all other things equal and one of them is against illegal immigration that it would be a deal maker for me. I think it will be a moot point in the ’08 election. As conditions exist today I don’t believe there will be a front runner who will declare war on illegal immigrants. I am aware of the support for some of the bottom tier candidates and I admire the decisiveness of those who have already declared their allegiance, but please consider this:

If you are supporting a candidate who has no prayer of getting the nomination then is your vote being wasted by casting it for someone who is predestined to lose? I know it ‘feels good’ to vote for the candidate you have chosen and supported, but if you want your vote to influence the election it might come down to having to hold your nose and vote for the one you think will do the least damage. Remember how Ralph Nader skewed the vote in the 2000 presidential election and the Supreme Court subsequently appointed George Bush to the office. History might treat that as the defining moment in the downfall of this great country.