Thread: Arthur Loux will run for TX US Senate

Hey all!

I was just researching the TX candidates for governor when I ran across the news that a Minuteman will be seeking Kay Bailiey Hutchisons Senate seat out of Texas. He needs our support and encouragement.

No other candidate in TX that I've found so far even MENTIONS the illegal immigration issue on their web page. I find that interesting since they all talk about schools and the sad state of affairs the Texas schools are in directly as a result of illegals and anchor babies!

I've already volunteered to distribute flyers, make calls, and anything else I might be able to do to further his campaign. We need to make his name a household word and get him elected.

Anyway, here's the link to Mr. Loux's page. Drop him a line even if you aren't eligible to vote for him. If we can stop some at the Texas border it is that many more that won't get to your states though here.

http://home.nctv.com/ourkeysdream/


Thanks!

Thanks for this tip, JJ

Kay Bailey Hutchinson has really disappointed me. She went to school with my father for a while and he always talks about her.

Anyhow, I live in the (once) Great State of Texas and I'll be voting for this fellow if he can turn everything around.

I'm pretty happy with my House Rep., Michael McCaul. But I'm moving into Lloyd Doggett's area and that just burns me up!

Once again, thanks for the heads up!

Kay Baily Hutchison has an ABI ratingof only .48. Shw would probably support the Bush guest worker amnesty. So please give her hell!!

Thanks Testament and TimBinh. I won't be living in TX for the rest of my life but I'd sure like to do my bit while I'm here to help the Americans that I will leave behind.

My House Rep is Sylvestre Reyes. He was head of the Border Patrol in this area for years but I suspect sometimes that he was one of the people who instructed the agents to turn their backs and let them come on in. He uses that job as his "claim to fame" and why he is so qualified for the congressional seat. I have but two good things to say about him: 1) Veterans are important to him and 2) he has answered every single letter I've ever sent and some of them aren't even form letters.

I won't vote for him (he runs as a Democrat) when he runs again and I haven't seen who plans to run against him. I think they have to file soon, though--January 6? There is not much doubt in my mind that he will win because this is one of few Democrat pockets of TX. The 78% Hispanic population, many of whom, like him, are naturalized or first generation Americans, will more than likely vote him back in. Even though I don't like his penchant for pushing a guest worker program and to keep allowing anchor babies to be citizens I think he is a decent person who is actually looking out for the voters who put him where he is. I only wish he were on the opposite side of the immigration fence because there is evidence that he is a hard worker. In any event, I will work for his opponent if his opponent has guts enough to stand up against illegal immigration.

Now, what do you guys think about the Governor? You voting him up or down? Strayhorn will run against him in the primaries. I read her entire speech and not one word was mentioned about illegals although plenty was said about the sorry state of the schools which are in that state specifically because of the illegals and their offspring. Kinky Friedman seems like just a showman with no platform whatsoever that I can see. And that other guy whose name starts with a K and the picture of the dead baby on his web site will never get my vote no matter what. I already wrote and told him that. I've never seen anything so disgusting in my life and I didn't even read his platform. Anyone that insensitive doesn't need to be governor of anything.

I have join so I can be in touch. If anyone has any questions please go to my home page, it is listed under my user profile and at the beginning of this discussion by JuniusJnr. Thanks for the kind words. As for changing turning things around I will give it my all. Again thanks, JuniusJnr for starting this discussion.

As someone who has run a statewide political campaign, I'd encourage this gentleman to use his resources to move from councilman to Mayor, Couty Commissioner or Congress. He can still talk about the issue of immigration and have just as much impact (and probably more) because his candidacy will have more legitimacy with the public, press, and other public officials. Even a congressional race will strain this gentleman's financial resources to their limits if he really fights to win. The point is, he may have a chance to actually win.

Unless he is independently wealthy, he won't be able to run a "real" campaign for US Senate (which costs millions)...and that can just as easily do harm to the movement...as help. He'll just be marginalized and perhaps labeled as a wacko...and if so, he won't have the money to fight back. And if he doesn't get the signature to get on the ballot (which he probably won't), it will also make it appear that the immigration enforcement movement doesn't have enough public support....more fodder for La Raza propagandists. (even thought it will actually be an issue of lack of money and professional campaign management)

I doubt he will even get his 50,000 signatures and/or if he does, they will be invalidated by the Secretary of State due to the failure to meet legal requirements. That's what often happens when amatures are managing campaigns and petition drives.

If you want to win a campaign---learn how others do it! There is a clear pattern for victory.... 1. A viable candidate 2. Money 3. Professional political consultants 4. Backing of the Dem or REP party.

The only campaigns where this does not hold true are SMALL LOCAL CAMPAIGNS, like city council races in small towns.

This movement does not have enough human or financial resources to use them up willy nilly.

Candidates should only "bite off" what they can actually chew. That's where so many people who decide to run for office make mistakes.

I know this probably sounds harsh to some people....but I want to win this fight (re illegal immigration enforcement)...and you can't do that if you keep losing every battle.

I'd be happy if I'm proven wrong....history will tell.

Steve, I disagree with you one thousand per cent. It is time for the average person to get in there and fight. They can win and eventually they will win.

If we keep letting "he who has the gold" make the rules then we are doomed.

I expect the average voter to disagree....we've been taught to love the underdog...and in the movies...the underdog often wins.

But in the real world of political campaigns...the inexperienced and under-funded third party "underdog" candidates loose....and have done so since the beginning of US elections.

This is a fact...not opinion.

Also, it's not that gold makes the rules.... it's just a fact that if you want to send a letter you have to pay postage! If you need to send every voter in Texas just one letter to tell them you want their vote---the cost is staggering! That's why TV 30 second ads are so important in statewide campaigns--and they cost money too.

If you are either a candidate of the devil or God....you still have campaign operating costs that need to be paid!!! You can't run a campaign without money---and lots of it!!!

Just think if you had to send ONE postcard to every person in Texas asking for them to vote for you. How much would that cost you in postage?

.23 x 20 million (?) = $4.6 million dollars in postage.

Then add in the cost for labels, and the postcard itself:

.4 x 20 million: = $800,000.00 more dollars.

So...you've already spent over $5 million just to send out postcards!
(In reality....that $5 million would be spent on TV...but you get my point why campaigns are so expensive---it's expensive to put together a communications plan with the voters)

I didn't say it wasn't expensive, Steve. But think about this: If five million people each gave ten dollars to one guy to launch a campaign, he'd have the money for a decent start.

With the internet, all a guy needs is a platform that people can relate to, the willingness to communicate with people who will get him speaking engagements where he can be met in person, and he COULD win without being a rich man to begin with.

People volunteer to help jerks like Bush out of the goodness of their hearts every day. What makes you think that they won't help a decent candidate get elected?

Our mayor is a great example of how a guy who the people can relate to can be elected. He had something like three thousand dollars tied up in a campaign and there were at least five candidates, all but one of whom had way more money to throw around than he did. The imcumbant had twenty some thousand dollars to play with plus backing of some of the businesses he had assisted. But the guy who sits in that chair today overcame the odds by being visible.

I think that if we could make a guy like Arthur Loux a household word, we can get him to the Senate and people like me will have representation. Middle class America needs representation, too.

I'm sure other states have equally worthy candidates. If we can get enough of them into the Senate and the House, we can make a difference. Texas is only one state out of fifty. And the time is ripe for sweeping changes.

Junius,

That's the trick...becoming a house-hold name! (Well you need more than a house-hold name--Jerry Springer decided not to run for Governor in Ohio after the polls showed voters would never elect him)

Unless you're a JOHN GLENN, becomming a house-hold name is 99.9% impossible without spending Millions.

It's easy to say "well if a million people gave ten dollars....you'd have $10 million dollars." Doing it is another thing.....and that is where professional campaign finance professionals are necessary---to raise the money.

And the fact is that very few average voters have ever made voluntary campaign contributions.

I had about $1 million to work with on a campaign and I couldn't come close to making my candidate a household name....it just isn't that easy.

Even some very powerful and well-liked candidates with 20 years of public service are still unable to become house-hold names.

You're not going to elevate a small-town councilman to US senator that fast or without cash or the professionals to raise the cash.

Now if you have someone out here with $200K, you could probably hire someone to take a shot at raising the funds...which would probably fail anyway.

Anyone have $200K to hire a professional fundraiser?