Anti-Incumbency In Action...Will There Be More?
I just got a chance to read John Hawkins' interview on RightWingNews with John Jacob, the man who is challening incumbent Chris Cannon for Utah's 3rd District seat in the Republican primary. The results thus far of the race have been telling.
From the looks of it, a week out of the primary the two candidates are extremely close with the undecided voters the ones who will swing it one way or another. The issue that seems to be burning this incumbent is immigration. Though he's been in 10 years, which normally would almost guarantee a reelection, he has openly and flauntingly expressed his support for illegal immigration, even for them to come to work in the fast food restaurants and landscaping companies of his own district. Take this quote that Hawkins turned up from 2002 from Cannon:
“We love immigrants in Utah. And we don't make the distinction very often between legal and illegal.”
Utah could easily be defined as one of the more conservative states in the Union and illegal immigration is certainly a key issue for such voters. As Jacob rightly notes, illegal immigration is not just one issue. It affects health services, crime, social services, education, almost every aspect of our daily lives. When you live in a semi-socialist nanny state, which much of the U.S. is, the benefits offered are highly desirable and highly exploitable by those who do not pay into the system and illegals most certainly don't pay.
The heartening sign of this race is that if Jacob wins in Utah, he'll not only send a very clear message to Washington on the weak immigration reform attempts, he'll send a strong message that incumbents aren't always safe just because they're incumbents. The 535 temp workers in the Capitol Building need to be reminded of that from time to time. I wish Jacob the best. He represents what I've been wanting to see for months, strong challengers to incumbents who are more in line with what the people they represent want to see in Congress.
Perhaps hot-button issues like this are the key to actually lighting a fire under incumbents. They can get behind any idea in an election year, but with the advent of the new media and online archives, no one is safe from their past words or deeds anymore. Some may have enough money to whitewash their former positions, but others should really beware, and are they really going to want to spend all that money in the primary before they meet their challenger from the other party (parties)? It doesn't make good sense, but neither does the majority of standing incumbents' complete disconnect from their constituency.
When elected representatives spend years living in the metro enclave of Washington D.C. and its surrounding suburbs, they basically become citizens of Washington D.C. Their homes in other states become almost vacation homes, places to go and remember fond memories of what it was like to once be a citizen of that state and to marvel that at one time they actually shared much of the same beliefs as those who voted them into office. It's also a chance for them to polish their platforms, speeches, and one-of-the-folks attitude so that they can pay enough lip service to get reelected. Certainly, that's not every member of Congress, but it's a good percentage, mostly any that have been there over 10 years. To think these people will remain static and as unchanging in their views with us as they were the day they went off to Washington is naive at best. We should do well to remember that as we vote each Primary and each November.
I just got a chance to read John Hawkins' interview on RightWingNews with John Jacob, the man who is challening incumbent Chris Cannon for Utah's 3rd District seat in the Republican primary. The results thus far of the race have been telling.
From the looks of it, a week out of the primary the two candidates are extremely close with the undecided voters the ones who will swing it one way or another. The issue that seems to be burning this incumbent is immigration. Though he's been in 10 years, which normally would almost guarantee a reelection, he has openly and flauntingly expressed his support for illegal immigration, even for them to come to work in the fast food restaurants and landscaping companies of his own district. Take this quote that Hawkins turned up from 2002 from Cannon:
“We love immigrants in Utah. And we don't make the distinction very often between legal and illegal.”
Utah could easily be defined as one of the more conservative states in the Union and illegal immigration is certainly a key issue for such voters. As Jacob rightly notes, illegal immigration is not just one issue. It affects health services, crime, social services, education, almost every aspect of our daily lives. When you live in a semi-socialist nanny state, which much of the U.S. is, the benefits offered are highly desirable and highly exploitable by those who do not pay into the system and illegals most certainly don't pay.
The heartening sign of this race is that if Jacob wins in Utah, he'll not only send a very clear message to Washington on the weak immigration reform attempts, he'll send a strong message that incumbents aren't always safe just because they're incumbents. The 535 temp workers in the Capitol Building need to be reminded of that from time to time. I wish Jacob the best. He represents what I've been wanting to see for months, strong challengers to incumbents who are more in line with what the people they represent want to see in Congress.
Perhaps hot-button issues like this are the key to actually lighting a fire under incumbents. They can get behind any idea in an election year, but with the advent of the new media and online archives, no one is safe from their past words or deeds anymore. Some may have enough money to whitewash their former positions, but others should really beware, and are they really going to want to spend all that money in the primary before they meet their challenger from the other party (parties)? It doesn't make good sense, but neither does the majority of standing incumbents' complete disconnect from their constituency.
When elected representatives spend years living in the metro enclave of Washington D.C. and its surrounding suburbs, they basically become citizens of Washington D.C. Their homes in other states become almost vacation homes, places to go and remember fond memories of what it was like to once be a citizen of that state and to marvel that at one time they actually shared much of the same beliefs as those who voted them into office. It's also a chance for them to polish their platforms, speeches, and one-of-the-folks attitude so that they can pay enough lip service to get reelected. Certainly, that's not every member of Congress, but it's a good percentage, mostly any that have been there over 10 years. To think these people will remain static and as unchanging in their views with us as they were the day they went off to Washington is naive at best. We should do well to remember that as we vote each Primary and each November.
posted by Rob Beck | 8:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home