The 2010 election cycle is likely to go down in history as the “year of the outsider.” Establishment politicians have been defeated in primaries across America. The anti-incumbent, anti-insider, anti-establishment mood of Red America has shifted the political spectrum. It has already claimed a number of scalps two months out from November.
Several familiar faces are no longer with us. Some have changed their tune. Some have narrowly escaped defeat. Some have fallen on hard times. A few challengers have won upset victories.
1.) Arlen Specter (D-PA) – Snarlin’ Arlen had long been a thorn in the side of the immigration reform movement. A supporter of the Bush amnesty, Specter switched parties after facing a tough primary challenge from Pat Toomey.
In May, Specter was defeated in the Democratic primary by Joe Sestak. According to the latest polls, Toomey leads Sestak 45 to 36 in the Pennsylvania Senate race. Unlike Arlen Specter, Toomey is a supporter of Arizona’s SB 1070.
2.) Ted Kennedy (D-MA) – The “Liberal Lion” of the Senate died in August 2009. The most outspoken champion of “comprehensive immigration reform” was replaced in the Senate by Scott Brown who stunned the political establishment by defeating Martha Coakley in the January special election.
Brown is not as tough on immigration as we would like, but he represents a vast improvement (moving the goal posts) over Ted Kennedy who inflicted more damage on White America than any other Senator of the late twentieth century. Good riddance.
3.) Robert Byrd (D-WV) – Sheets Byrd wasn’t all that bad as far as Democratic Senators tend to go. He passed away in June at the age of 92. NumbersUSA described Byrd as a “stalwart opponent of amnesty.” He will be sorely missed.
Joe Manchin, Governor of West Virginia, is likely to win Byrd’s Senate seat in November. He has studiously avoided taking a position on the Arizona immigration law.
Over the past twenty years, West Virginia has become more conservative. It is a prime example of blue collar, rural, working class Whites deserting the Democratic Party. In 2008, West Virginia went solidly for McCain and for Hillary over Obama in the Democratic primary.
If Manchin wins in November, a likely Democratic hold, he is unlikely to stir up much trouble on immigration.
4.) Bob Bennett (R-Utah) – In May, Senator Bob Bennett lost renomination at the Utah Republican convention. Bennett was a supporter of the Bush amnesty. His loss was deplored by The Washington Post.
In June, Tea Party favorite Mike Lee secured the Republican nomination. He is all but assured to coast to victory in November. Lee is an opponent of birthright citizenship for illegal aliens.
5.) Rand Paul (R-KY) – Rand Paul needs no introduction here. In May, Rand won the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Kentucky, defeating Trey Grayson, the favorite of the GOP establishment. He will face Jack Conway in the general election in November.
Rand Paul is an opponent of birthright citizenship. He has called an underground electrical fence on the Mexican border a “cost effective” and “humane” solution to illegal immigration.
6.) John McCain (R-AZ) – Yesterday, John McCain defeated J.D. Hayworth in the Arizona Republican Primary. It only cost him $21 million dollars and a total repudiation of his former position on amnesty for illegal aliens. The chastened McCain will return to the Senate hemmed in by his new rhetorical position.
7.) Alvin Greene (D-SC) – In South Carolina, the Democratic Party nominated Alvin Greene, a buffoon who will be crushed by Jim DeMint in November. DeMint has been a reliable opponent of “comprehensive immigration reform” for years now.
8.) Lindsey Graham (R-SC) – Grahamnesty isn’t up for reelection this year, but like John McCain, he has changed his tune on immigration. A few years ago, Graham told the National Council of La Raza that he was going to “make the bigots shut up.” Now he is opposed to birthright citizenship for illegal aliens.
9.) Charlie Crist (I-FL) – Charlie Crist, Governor of Florida, lost the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate to Tea Party challenger Marco Rubio. The latest polls show Rubio defeating Kenderick Meek and Charlie Crist in a three way race.
While not completely solid on immigration, Rubio is an improvement over Crist. Either Rubio or Crist would have been an improvement over Mel Martinez, a former GOP chairman under Bush, who co-sponsered “comprehensive immigration reform” in the Senate.
10.) Harry Reid (D-NV) – In Nevada, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is in a toss up reelection fight with Sharron Angle, the Tea Party challenger. Angle is a strong supporter of Arizona and would be a reliable opponent of amnesty in the Senate.
11.) Michael Bennet (D-CO) – In Colorado, Michael Bennet is losing his Senate reelection fight to Ken Buck, a supporter of Arizona’s SB 1070. In 2008, Bennet was appointed as the replacement of Ken Salazar, a strong supporter of the Bush amnesty.
12.) Larry Craig (R-ID) – Larry Craig of Idaho left the Senate in disgrace in 2009 after signaling to an undercover police officer that he wanted gay sex in a bathroom stall at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
I’m throwing Craig into this “where are they now” post for good measure. He was another stalwart supporter of the Bush amnesty and relentlessly pushed the hated AgJobs bill. Craig was succeeded by Jim Risch who is an opponent of comprehensive immigration and birthright citizenship.
13.) Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) – In Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln is widely expected to fall to John Boozman. Lincoln tried to walk a tightrope and infuriated progressives by killing the “public option” of Obamacare. She voted yes for “comprehensive immigration reform.”
14.) Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) – Yesterday, Lisa Murkoswki was defeated by Joe Miller, the Tea Party candidate, in the Alaska Senate race. It was another upset that shocked the political establishment. Miller is an opponent of “comprehensive immigration reform.”
15.) Barack Obama and Joe Biden (D-IL and D-DE) – In 2009, Barack Obama and Joe Biden left the Senate for the White House. Both were supporters of “comprehensive immigration reform.”
In Delaware, Mike Castle (R-DE) is expected to win Biden’s old seat. In Illinois, Mark Kirk (R-IL) is in a toss up race with Alexi Giannoulias for Obama’s old seat. If Castle and Kirk win in November, they will easily represent an improvement on immigration over Obama and Biden.
16.) Judd Gregg (R-NH) – Judd Gregg of New Hampshire left his Senate seat to serve as Commerce Secretary in the Obama administration. He quickly withdrew from the post, but decided against running for reelection. Gregg was another supporter of “comprehensive immigration reform.”
Kelly Ayotte is likely to win Gregg’s old seat in November. Ayotte is a supporter of Arizona and an opponent of “comprehensive immigration reform.”
17.) Sam Brownback (R-KS) – Sam Brownback was another evangelical charlatan and Bush Republican who supported the Bush amnesty. Now he is running for Governor of Kansas. Congressman Jerry Moran is expected to win Brownback’s old Senate seat. Moran has been attacking the Obama administration over its lawsuit against Arizona.
Elsewhere, the Republicans are on the march. Evan Bayh’s old seat in Indiana will fall to Dan Coats. Byron Dorgan’s old seat in North Dakota will fall to John Hoeven. Bayh and Dorgan were conservative Democrats who opposed “comprehensive immigration reform.”
Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer, and Russ Feingold are also in toss up re-election fights in Washington, California, and Wisconsin. All three are prominent supporters of “comprehensive immigration reform.” If Republican turnout proves to be strong as it has been forecasted, all three could fall in the wave.
What seemed unthinkable a few years ago has now come to pass. The GOP traitors who supported amnesty have been picked off left and right. Even the Democrats who supported amnesty under Bush are facing tough reelection fights.
When the dust clears in November, Barack Obama could be facing the most hostile Senate to amnesty for illegal aliens in years. The GOP establishment was not as impregnable as it once seemed. The Tea Party tried and succeeded in hijacking the Republican Party.
In my next post, I will take a look at the Governor races, which have proven even more interesting than the Senate campaigns. The theme of outsiders vs. insiders has been even more on display there.
Brownback is a Good-Roman-Catholic, so his pro-Immigration zealotry goes without saying.
The dream of a Roman-Catholic USA — or at least a less-White-Protestant one — marches on.
Wanderer: “Brownback is a Good-Roman-Catholic, so his pro-Immigration zealotry goes without saying.”
Actually, Senator Switchback is much worst than being a principled supporter of alien invasion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdyVIZkC57Q
I would reserve the most extreme punishment for politicians such as him.
Mike
The GOP candidate running against Barbara Boxer for the Senate is Meg Whitman, who ran against “illegals” in the primary, but is now putting up Spanish language signs promising not to bother the wetbacks. Not a rich, imbecilic, Jewish, communist anti-White like Boxer, but but a rich, intelligent, White, uber capitalist anti-White.
I’m disappointed that McCain won the primary in AZ. I have little doubt he’ll betray the voters again as soon as he’s safely reelected. How many of these outsiders are neocons?
Of course, electoral politics is just a game. Following candidates closely is like keeping track of Shaque O’Neille or Paris Hilton. The only real value is in stirring up antagonism, and gaining advantage before the contest to come.
I need somebody to explain something to me.
I’m STILL boggled that McCain won. I know he spent a lot of money. I know he
completely flipped (at least to the voters’ faces) his views on amnesty.
But Arizona is the very front of the immivasion. HOW could they have reelected McAmnesty?
Especially since Hayworth was a Tea Party favorite.
I am suspicious they *didn’t.* Who here has seen HBO’s Black Box Voting?
Bill: “Outsiders”? Not at all likely. Candidates are groomed for years, even decades, in advance of their elections. There is too much graft at stake to allow amateurs to play.
Barb, 2008 was the first time I’ve voted in person in my state. I used to mail the ballot in the past years. At the voting station you push a button to indicate your choice of candidate and that sends a signal to a laptop where election workers look at your vote before adding it to the database. Not very confidence inspiring I might add. What’s to keep someone from deleting it if they don’t like your politics?
“What’s to keep someone from deleting it if they don’t like your politics?”
Thanks, Bill.
Wow.
Even worse than I thought. In this case, all that’s needed is for McCain’s puppet masters to put into some polling places a few vote-changers.
Stalin:
It’s Not the People Who Vote that Count; It’s the People Who Count the Votes
Good to see that Hunter has finally taken to heart what Sam Francis had to say way back in 1998:
“I do not believe that secessionism will prosper as a serious political movement, but I do worry that it will prosper to the point of becoming a serious political distraction—a distraction from the imperative that Middle Americans now face of constructing their own autonomous political movement that can take back their nation rather than assisting the new underclass and the globalist ruling class in breaking it up. The time left for us to do so is shorter than it has ever before in our history, and until we outgrow the infantile disorder that secessionism offers, the construction cannot begin.”
Really interesting post, thanks. If these candidates want to help themselves, they should do more than position themselves on paper as opponents to “immigration reform”/amnesty. They should actively campaign on the issue, because the majority of the country is with them and fired up over it (as many news sites will attest, few issues attract impassioned debate like illegal immigration). We’ll see.
I can’t believe McCain won! Actually, I’m shocked. What a disappointment.
Hayworth ignominiously dove in a PC direction: http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/2010/07/22/uh-oh-weve-upset-jd-hayworth/
If that is any indication, he probably would’ve been a McCain clone anyway.
“The GOP candidate running against Barbara Boxer for the Senate is Meg Whitman, ”
Meg Whitman is running for Governor. Carly Fiorina is running for Boxer’s seat. The description of Whitman is correct, though.
Erik Nordman: I stand corrected. (Duuuhhh)
These people are way less important than the orthodox taboos they protect and inflict upon us.
For the record, I am still a supporter of secession. If the Northwest seceded tomorrow, I would be the first to crack open a bottle of champagne. I would be even happier if the South left the Union.
It is mistake though to come out as a secessionist in the current political environment. Even in the 1850s, William Lowndes Yancey disavowed being a secessionist. Yancey was a genius at moving the goal posts and working within the mainstream to lead moderates in a more radical direction.
He followed a strategy which I have called “reasonable extremism.” We used to talk about it around the house.
If Yancey were alive today, he would say something like:
“I am the biggest patriot in America, but Arizona would be justified in leaving the Union, seeing how the Obama administration has failed to defend the state from invasion, and has even sued Arizona to stop its citizens from defending themselves.
I don’t support secession. I think disunion would be a tragedy. But the Obama administration has made it clear that native Arizonans are inferior to drug smugglers and criminal illegal aliens in the eyes of the federal government.
I’m not surprised that a proud, self-respecting people would find this situation intolerable and have given up on Washington. Secessionist talk is the natural consequence of a government controlled by a venal elite that has debased American citizenship and has nothing but contempt for ordinary people.”
He wouldn’t come out and scream, NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS, SECEDE FROM ZOG NOW!!! Instead, Yancey would put secession on the table, legitimize it as an option in the mainstream, and attach reasonable, but impossible conditions to staying in the Union.
Whitman is scum.
The solution to scumbag politicians is to make them pay a political price for their treason on immigration reform. Undoubtedly, the fresh faces coming into the Senate are no better than their predecessors. It is the political landscape that has changed.
The solution is not empty rhetorical posturing in cyberspace which is easily dismissed and ignored. That accomplishes nothing.
It’s Charlie Crist, not Christ.
Whether or not these people are elected to the Senate is irrelevant at this stage. Whatever mild force for change they may bring to the Congress will be quickly diffused by Establishment posturing and wheelspinning. Many of us remember the ‘Republican Revolution’ of 1994.
At most, these people are proposing feelgood tweaks to the system. An underground electric fence? Right. Genius at work, there. While these people are proposing half-assed solutions to close the barn door, the horse has already gone. The millions and millions of greaseballs are already here, merrily breeding away.
Furthermore, even if our bankrupt and exhausted political system were capable of significant change, we don’t have forty years to accomplish it, in an environment where we constituted 90% of the population. We are nearly out of time, right now. It is about thirty years too late to take the wide-eyed innocents by the hand and gently lead them.
The inherent contradictions in the system are going to destroy it soon. The radical five percent should be focused on the main chance, rather than wasting time worrying about electoral politics.
It is a good thing these politicians are no longer with us.
The worst offenders on “comprehensive immigration reform” have been purged from the Senate. The goal posts have been shifted. It is now mainstream to talk about ending birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. The 14th Amendment is the legal cornerstone of the denationalization of America.
These moderate steps aren’t sufficient. There are many steps further down the road to the endzone. The most important observation is that political reality has changed from where it was five years ago.
The shift in the mainstream can be contrasted with the stagnation on the fringe.
Five years later, the supporters of the Bush amnesty are being purged from the Senate, 22 states are in rebellion against the federal government over immigration, and public awareness of the immigration problem is far improved from the Bush vs. Kerry election in 2004.
Five years later, the White Nationalist movement hasn’t changed in the slightest degree. It is still the same cast of characters debating the same issues. It is still the same people fighting over money and conflicts of personality. It still exists exclusively in cyberspace. It still has zero impact on the political spectrum.
I define “wasting time” as talking all day about White Revolution on the internet and doing absolutely nothing in reality to bring it about. It is the equivilant of playing a video game.
Hunter said:
I define “wasting time” as talking all day about White Revolution on the internet and doing absolutely nothing in reality to bring it about. It is the equivilant of playing a video game.
I don’t disagree with you at all, but it seems to me that fooling with electoral politics at this late date is equally a waste of time. The main reason the Revolution never happened is that there never was massive social/economic /beyond -Great -Depression- Level unrest to power it. Generations of white nationalists have been frustrated by the simple fact that a revolution can’t be created by mere force of will.
They did what the could. They produced quite a few excellent books and essays, which they mostly sent to each other, because that stuff was for zanies and fringe types, not sensible, tolerant, people. They created organizations which, when they failed to gain traction or momentum, turned inward and imploded. They spent hours making carefully constructed arguments one-on-one which could not compete with the lifted eyebrow and sneering expression of some bubblehead news reader who provided correct social cues. Every now and then one of them would run screaming out into the street with a rifle, to self-destruct.
The left, on the other hand, was riding a strong, steady ideological tide which had been moving in the same direction since at least the 1840s. Furthermore new technology and apparent affluence increasingly allowed people to escape reality and become sentimental, eccentric and stupid. In retrospect, I don’t see how things could have worked out much differently.
Let’s assume that the Pubs take both houses of Congress this year, and the presidency in 2012. Olympia Snowe, McCain, and their ilk will still be with us, and a lightweight like Palin, Huckabee or Romney will be in the White House. Of course these are the folks going on and on right now about how they aren’t racist, only against ILLEGAL immigration, etc. No one dares mention the sacred, every-step-drenched-in-rosewater blacks.
The liberals will continue to control the bureaucracy, the Federal courts, the remnants of the MSM, the educational establishment and the foundations. It would take decades to reverse this process, even if most whites were committed to the goal, which they are not.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the Pubs fail even to repeal Obamacare, let alone come up with a useful plan to shut down the border, which the courts will overturn in any event. Even if the border were closed it will do nothing to address the real problem. The Great Greaseball Migration has already been successfully completed, and it has very, very healthy demographics.
I agree it is now useful for us to break out of the Internet Bubble and talk to people, but the goal should be to find and communicate with those who will constitute the modern version of John Adams’ Three Percent. Whether Rand Paul or Ingy Bingie is elected to the Senate, however, doesn’t mean much.
I think Hunter is being a bit too negative here when he dismisses most/all of the American WN movement:
Hunter says:
“Five years later, the White Nationalist movement hasn’t changed in the slightest degree. It is still the same cast of characters debating the same issues. It is still the same people fighting over money and conflicts of personality. It still exists exclusively in cyberspace. It still has zero impact on the political spectrum.
I define “wasting time” as talking all day about White Revolution on the internet and doing absolutely nothing in reality to bring it about. It is the equivalent of playing a video game.”
My comments:
I was once a “Conservative” patriotic American who “awoke” through American White Nationalist publications, web sites – I hung out on Stormfront a lot, but got away and back in to real American life. I worked very hard on many campaigns and am proud to say I worked to win 2 very important US Congressional races and worked to beat back the last mass amnesty attempt.
I have lots of small personal successes – White couples getting married, having children, White Judeo Christian patriots learning the truth about Jewish Neo Conservative intrigues in US foreign policy, immigration policy etc.
No, I haven’t single handedly changed the course of American history and won the ultimate victory to secure the 14 words. But I have been in the real world, working for solid small victories.
WN internet activism such as here on O.D. , American Renaissance, Vdare.com even Stormfront – though that’s go way down – these are making a difference.
By all mean, step away from the computer and be active locally in your community. Don’t spend all your time typing on a computer. But, let’s not be too negative. We are having successes.
Manchin’s a Roman Catholic, and an Italian. His grandfather owned what was called an “Italian store” in the northern West Virginia coal fields.
Manchin may well end up as a Bill Clinton type Jew toy from a poor White state.
Rand Paul is handsome. He has a nice face and dimples. I wish him well.
Marco Rubio is NOT Tea Party challenger.