Cantor is just the beginning

Some catching up to do after a few days away…

Apparently, there was an event over the weekend in which the forces of light overcame the legions of darkness. Or maybe it was the 7th district GOP convention doing its best Monty Python imitation. While I agree with what Jim wrote here, and D.J. McGuire wrote here, I can’t help but be amused by the following quote in Tony Lee’s write-up of the affair:

[Pat] McSweeney said Saturday’s outcome has energized Brat’s supporters who outnumbered Cantor’s allies and has convinced doubters that a victory for Brat is at least still “plausible” in June if Brat can raise enough money and ride the momentum provided by Gruber’s win to his advantage.

He also said Saturday’s victory would have a long-term impact.

“The Tea Party and conservative insurgents now realize that they are no longer insurgents, but have prevailed,” McSweeney told Breitbart News. “They will make an effort to neutralize the impression that they are angry, negative people by urging the establishment folks to stay involved in working with the conservatives to build the Party. They will concentrate on pushing a positive policy agenda.”

An intramural party scrum will not affect the outcome of the 7th district primary. Mr. Cantor will win, but his margin is an open question. Anything less than 60 percent all but guarantees him a challenge in 2016 from the camp currently advising Mr. Brat. Very likely, with the new district leadership, they will attempt to put the race to a nominating convention (though the Virginia code would seem to indicate otherwise…more fun for lawyers ahead).

And now regarding what Pat said…

He is absolutely right that the new 7th district leadership will have to “neutralize the impression that they are angry.” That will be a tall order for some — on both sides. Overcoming hurt feelings, warnings of doom and mutual anathemas would be a chore for anyone. As for the idea of pushing a “positive policy agenda,” yes, that does need to happen. It has always been necessary, regardless of who is in charge. But I also believe D.J. McGuire is correct when he wrote:

…based on emails and comments I have seen, it looks like Saturday was all about personalities. That saddens me. There are good reasons to be upset with Eric Cantor (chief among them, the bank bailout), but it appears much of the GVRB is about settling scores and assuaging grudges.

The task ahead is to see who will step forward and be the grown-up who wants to get things done. So far, the field is full of two-year olds.

And boy, do they have a laundry list of grievances:

“We’re not convinced that the fight over the nomination method going forward has been settled. We expect to have that fight next year and in 2016 and 2017,” McSweeney said. He noted that Ed Gillespie, who is running for Senate this year in what is possibly a trial run for a gubernatorial campaign in 2017, and Cantor “represent what remains of the old Bush machine in Virginia” and the “outcome yesterday will give Gillespie heartburn.

Mr. Gillespie, take note: they are coming for you, too.

  • Samuel E Morrison

    I seriously doubt they will be working to keep the former establishment engaged since these people are motivated almost entirely by the idea of kicking all the RINO’s out of the party and leaving only the most ideologically pure with a seat at the table to make decisions. That’s been the problem with the entire Liberty/Ron Paul movement in Virginia. They win and then they alienate everyone making their wins irrelevant because they preferred to destroy the machine they just took over rather than try to improve it.

    • “That’s the problem with the entire (liberty) movement in Virginia.”

      Please stop that. By just making a claim like that, you’re engaging in the same incendiary behavior your claiming to abhor.

      Many of us try very hard to work together and build bridges to get conservative Republicans elected.

      At the end of the day, there are winners and losers in all contests. If your chosen candidate doesn’t get the nomination, then try again when the appropriate time for re-election approaches.

      The sour-grape whining about losing elections is pathetic and does more to destroy our party than anything else – that goes for the “establishment,” Tea Partiers, libertarians and the rest of the Republicans in Virginia

      • Samuel E Morrison

        By entire, I meant the whole, as in the gestalt whole, as opposed to every single individual in the liberty movement acting in that one regard. As a whole, the Liberty movement wants to rid the party of RINOs and claim all the seats at the table for people who share their ideology. Are you saying that’s not your goal as it regards taking over positions of power in the party? Perception is reality in politics and I’ve seen nothing from the Liberty movement that leads me to perceive they care about anything more than taking out the politicians and political leaders they disagree with so that they can have their hands, and no one elses, on the levers of power.

        (edit) And for the record, I don’t necessarily disagree with that. I’m just making the point that their actions and strategy are making those levers significantly less powerful than before because they are alienating people more than building real coalitions with the people they defeat. They are essentially doing what they are accusing the establishment of doing, except in reverse.

        • Turbocohen

          Sam, go way back in US history.. Our founding fathers never intended for the citizenry to pay half of what they earn to a soul less government that is managed by an elite privileged few for the benefit of same. Look at Cantor through the eyes of our founders.. What do you think they would see?

          • Samuel E Morrison

            I see someone with a great deal of power who, by virtue of there leadership position, has to put his own beliefs and philosophies behind those of his caucus, or at the least the ones who voted for him. What I don’t understand is how more people don’t see that. He’s House Majority leader for petes sake, you really think he can afford to push his own personal agenda and keep that position? What Cantor does or does not believe will always be secondary to that of his caucus, at least so long as he wants to stay majority leader or become speaker. It’s called being a politician.

            As for defeating him in a primary, sure, why not. But Dave Brat is not the guy. There is plenty of room for ideologues in the house, just not at the expense of a leadership seat.

          • Turbocohen

            Defend Cantor supporting EVERY debt limit increase. Go ahead, do it. When Cantor entered office, we had a 6T debt load. Now we have 17T. Of the 11T, how much did Cantor not vote for?

          • I think they’d see a leader trying to do his job under the constraints that they created. In terms of policy, they’d be all over the map because the founders could barely agree amongst themselves, too.

          • Samuel E Morrison

            Yeah last I checked the Founders were broken into groups like Federalist and Anti-Federalist, pro-slavery and anti-slavery, and people like Hamilton who wanted a Central Bank. Claiming “Vision of the Founders” for anything is about the dumbest argument you can make if you think its some kind of debate ender. You can find at least one Founder to support literally any argument you want to make.

          • ghostofteddalton

            Great post. This is why anyone who cites “the Founders” for any proposition should have no relevance in a contemporary political debate. There simply wasn’t a coherent vision of “the Founding.” As everyone during the period indicated, the Constitution itself was a series of Compromises. Plenty of people who signed it and voted for its ratification at the state conventions who disagreed with portions of the document. It wasn’t an “Amen Corner” voting unanimously for every word.

            These were men, not demigods. They had disagreements and they usually ended up compromising. Madison was as anti-National Bank as Jefferson, but after the War of 1812, he signed legislation to recharter it even though the “Father of the Constitution” himself had earlier proclaimed it was “unconstitutional.” When you look at the words and actions of the Founders…..none of them viewed the Constitution as some sort of inflexible, unmovable document from which they couldn’t deviate. They deemed their own actions “constitutional” when it suited their own purposes even if they had misgivings. Jefferson himself thought the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional and thought an amendment was needed based on the historical evidence we have, but he ended up going through with deal for expediency’s sake.

            I ultimately explain it this way to clients: in life, you sign plenty of papers you don’t fully agree with. I’ll guarantee that you don’t agree 100% with every word in your mortgage or the Deed of Trust on your house. And yet, you look at the alternatives (no house, all cash purchase, etc.) and decide to sign the mortgage. Acting as if the Founders didn’t do the same is just not accurate. I doubt there was anyone in Philadelphia who agreed 100% with every clause in the document. But they looked at the alternatives (Articles of Confederation, splitting up into separate states, a threat of British re-entry into American political life) and signed the document and urged for its ratification. 225 years later to say that every word is sacrosanct and immutable is not an accurate vision of the document.

          • NormLeahy

            Then your view of history is ahistorical. Even the great (if often batty) John Randolph of Roanoke said that while he loved liberty, he was an aristocrat who hated equality.

          • MD Russ


            They would see a republic with no standing military that was defenseless when attacked by Great Britain in 1812. (Remember that unfortunate night that the Brits set the White House on fire after looting it because there was no US Army or Marine Corps to stop them?) They would see a democracy where only white, male property owners could hold office or even vote. They would see a land of the free that accepted the enslavement of Africans and their descendants. They would see a country with no infrastructure other than dirt roads that often charged a toll. They would see a country with no centralized monetary policy and no regulation of banks or stock exchanges. They would see a political discourse process that included settling disputes by dueling pistols.

            I forgot. What was your question and how does the time of our Founding Fathers have any relevance to today?

          • Turbocohen

            You pay the government half of what you earn. Cool with that. MD?

          • That’s almost Hoeft-quality of bypassing a good reply and immediately going to the counterpoint.

          • MD Russ

            I wouldn’t be if I actually paid “the government” half of what I earn. But I don’t.

          • Warmac9999

            MD only sees his income tax as a tax. Things like property taxes, sales taxes, utility taxes, gas taxes, communication taxes, state and local specialty fees, etc. etc. etc never factor into his thinking – so to him he doesn’t pay half his income in taxes.

      • Republican_Against_Democrats

        This coming from the same Stearns that talked about “pWning” the Henrico County Mass Meeting on his personal Facebook page. But I digress into the sort of banter that has been the M.O. of the liberty movement all along. This was evidenced by the lack of respect and shouting during Cantor’s speech on Saturday as opposed to the silent, respectful attention paid to Radtke, Gruber and co. This script-flipping nicety upon winning does not erase the past.

        In March, April and May of this year the inner party battle has been won by the liberty movement simply because it is March, April and May. The average American simply does not pay as close attention to politics as most of us here and that type of caring typically results in more galvanized political stances (think liberal college student protestors). You couldn’t pay some Republicans enough to sit through a Mass Meeting or a statewide convention on a sunny Saturday afternoon in April or June, although these same Republicans vote in every general election and primary. Why do you think it was the goal of the Paul/Cuccinelli group to move us to conventions? They were scared their more conservative message would alienate those less galvanized primary voters. To believe that strategically hoping our nominees are picked by a smaller number of participants is somehow more democratic is laughable; to consider that behavior ‘building bridges’ is equally laughable.

        This is why Cantor will win on June 10th. By the way, it’s worth mentioning that Cantor is the face of Obama-opposition within liberal circles and sometimes even as a face of the Tea Party; yet I’m a RINO if I say I support the guy Democrats can’t stand. I am still scratching my head on that one.

        It may continue to be a wonderful spring to be a very conservative Republican, it may even be promising in defeat this summer against Cantor (imagining about 61-39 high end and 55-45 low end victory for Cantor), however the long-term forecast is many, many dark Novembers ahead.

        • Yes, supporters of mine owned the 3rd Congressional District portion of the floor at the Henrico County Republican Mass Meeting – and thank goodness they did.

          Considering the fact that long-time party activists in Richmond were the victims of rule-manipulation in the Richmond City Republican Mass Meeting, I was pretty thrilled that they turned out in Henrico County.

          Republicans from Henrico’s East End took notice after the shenanigans in Richmond and they wanted to be elected delegates to the 3rd Congressional District Convention. In the interest of not being denied voting privileges at the Convention, they brought as many Republicans as they could to ensure their voice would be heard.

          As I recall, I didn’t hear any heckling from those folks at the Mass Meeting in Henrico County, nor was there any type of disrespect at the 3rd Congressional District Convention, despite the competitive atmosphere.

          Like I said before, I do want to build bridges. If you want to continue distortion, demagoguery and trash-talk, go for it.

          Just remember – you can catch a lot more people with honey…

          • Republican_Against_Democrats

            I would contend there is absolutely no distortion or trash-talking in my response, I’m speaking simple facts.

            I look forward to working my butt off this election cycle, like I have every cycle for as long back as I can remember, to help our Republican candidates win elections. Whether they win or not will not be up to me or other volunteers like me, though our efforts will help. It inevitably will be up to the voters that participate in general elections, those same voters that don’t have time to dedicate to spending entire Saturdays at conventions. When independent swing voters look at our nominees, nominees that had to win the support of a small population of galvanized political activists, those swing voters are going to see candidates that are too ideologically dissimilar to them. The campaign tactics that will be necessary to win a convention will alienate the swing voters we will need to win. They will vote for the alternative. We will lose. These are basic facts that any Poli-Sci freshman can grasp.

            Prove me wrong, please, I really hope you can because it really, really sucks having no Republicans in a single statewide office and having our highest ranking member of Congress under constant fire from within his party. Problem is you can’t prove me wrong because the simple numbers won’t allow it.

          • David A.


          • Whoever you are, I appreciate whatever effort you’ve put in to help elect Virginia Republicans in the past.

            However, you’re not being consistent…

            When you try to draw parallels between heckling and voter turnout at a Mass Meeting, you are engaging in a great deal of distortion. If you’re going to make an attempt at accuracy, don’t correlate two totally different situations.

            That being said, I partially sympathize with your argument regarding party-run nominating conventions. They usually take an entire day and are sometimes inconvenient for those who want to participate. On the other hand, I don’t think that’s necessarily a good reason to not nominate our candidates in conventions.

            If we look at the recent history of conventions, we see our most recent statewide victories have been the result of the quality of the candidates themselves – not the nominating method.

            Consider George Allen… He was nominated for public office four times: once by convention, thrice by primary. Subsequent to those nominating contests, he went on to win two general elections; one having been nominating in the 1993 State Convention and; one having been nominated by a government-run primary in 2000. Furthermore, Allen’s two primary victories in 2006 and 2012 ultimately concluded with losses.

            However, Bill Bolling was nominated in 2005 for Lieutenant Governor by a government-run primary and went on to win the general election. Four years later (during the genesis of the Tea Party movement), he was nominated by a convention and beat the snot out of his Democratic rival in the general election.

            The point I’m trying to make is that methods of nomination don’t mean jack-squat when it comes down to general election viability. The burden of winning rests solely on the shoulders of the candidate and whether or not he/she can raise enough money, operate a first-class campaign organization and, most importantly, appeal to a majority of the voting participants during the general election cycle.

            With that being the case, I come to a conclusion that is rooted in the same Republican Creed we collectively ascribe to. We shouldn’t resort to the government to provide convenience when we can sufficiently conduct the same operational matter (nominating our party’s candidates) without it.

            As stated above, the method of nomination is generally inconsequential with respect to the results of an election cycle. With that being the case, why in the world would we resort to government to operate our party’s nomination processes and open the door to all registered voters in Virginia to participate in selecting our candidate?

            To date, I cannot come up with a legitimate answer to that question.

            Building a core Republican voter list from primary voters could arguably be a decent rationale for opting in favor of a primary, but that still doesn’t help to justify an ill-founded, impulsive necessity for government operation of a process that we can do just as well on our own. Also, it’s nonsense to presume that every single registered voter in Virginia possesses the inherent right to have a say in who our nominee will ultimately be.

            To conclude, I harken back to 2009 when two of the three statewide offices were contested in the State Convention. After the ballots were counted and the results were announced, we bounded together and got the job done in November.

            I’d love another repeat of beating the Democrats by double-digits after the 2009 State Convention, but we’re handicapping ourselves when the discussion devolves to the rationale you’ve displayed in your previous posts. If we’re going to discuss and debate the merits of the various nomination methods, let’s stick to the facts. Misleading arguments and irrational, emotional decisions should be reserved for the Democrats.

            One last thing… Don’t hold anything against physics students in the GOP. I never got through freshman year for political science. 🙂

        • Downstater

          I do not believe that either of the candidates should be heckled or booed. This makes the T.P. forces look bad. But bravo to those who are letting Cantor know that he has to choose between us and the -bleeping illegals. I am so sick of being told that we have to feel sorry for them. Tell them to take it up with their parents and be grateful they were give free education and not deported, like they should have been.

          And remind Cantor that it was the people of his district who put him where his is now, and we can put him down too.

  • BrianKirwin

    Libertarians are RINOs

    • Turbocohen

      VB Mayor is a… Libertarian?

      • Samuel E Morrison

        If Will Sessoms and Libertarians are equidistant from the Republican Creed, but towards opposite sides, then what do you think that means…?

    • I just checked with the Creed and it looks like I’m invited to the Party…

      • BrianKirwin

        You mean the creed that favors immigration amnesty?

        • Oh, please… Because I’m an advocate of amnesty for illegal immigrants?

          My race is over and I’m still learning new things about myself.

          • BrianKirwin

            “That all individuals are entitled to equal rights, justice, and
            opportunities and should assume their responsibilities as citizens in a free society”

          • “Citizens,” not non-citizens.

            I suppose your comparison is based on the idea that Republicans favor the Creed in its entirety, with technical deviations in one direction or another for each line-item. I can dig that.

            Though, it would be nice if certain Republican elected officials wouldn’t go ass-backwards on some of these principles. That type of behavior becomes a bit irritating…

          • BrianKirwin

            It’s simple, really. The creed says all individuals should assume responsibilities as citizens.

            Sounds like amnesty.

          • Britt Howard

            Then let us have every person come here.

  • Turbocohen

    Good article until the last line which is simply not accurate. Ed has been grossly mischaracterized by some but not most tea party folks. 20+ years ago before the tea party or liberty movement were so much as a twinkle in someones eye, Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich and a few other conservatives of that era were the Tea Party, if you will, and Ed was in that camp. Show me a fiscal Tea Party conservative who is “coming for” Ed and I will show you a hypocrite.

    Tea party folks here in Virginia Beach will meet with Ed on May 20. Contact Eric Wray for detail.

    • NormLeahy

      I have never doubted your support for Mr. Gillespie. But Mr. McSweeney issues a not-so-veiled threat that Gillespie is part of the old regime that no longer has a home in Virginia.

      • Turbocohen

        I and plenty of conservative Tea Party activists disagree with Pat on this. After convention we will have a nominee. Lets beat the fucking snot out of Mark Warner guys, enough eating our own.

        • Pot, meet kettle

          Enough eating our own? That is the main food if you will of the tea partiers. Funny when you have a candidate you are willing to endorse, you want the RINO help. I hope the RNC turns the tables and makes it a goal to primary hard against every tea party candidate that is up for election.

          • Kettle, meet pot

            Almost as funny as establishment Republicans wanting everyone to hold hands and focus on defeating Democrats, until there is a TEA party candidate running …

          • Turbocohen

            Kind of like Tea Party guy Cantor slating off all the rino’s.. I’ll make a note of that.

          • Britt Howard

            Exactly the bull that is proven wrong by our support of Gillespie! Then again, Ed hasn’t declared war on us, or attempted to purge us out with systematic slating.

      • Britt Howard

        So, don’t paint the rest of us with the same broad brush.

  • Warmac9999

    Cantor has taken a number of policy positions that are more consistent with Democrats than the Republican base. His most significant departure was his idea that illegal dreamers are somehow more important than citizen dreamers.

    • This is simply not true.

      • Warmac9999

        So what you are saying is the news media misreported his statements on the children of illegal immigrants. If so, I stand corrected. If not, I stand on my statement.

        • No, what I am saying is that the DREAM Act has bipartisan support from both Democrats and Republicans.

          Cantor said this about the KIDS Act: “Certainly we ought to have the compassion to say these kids shouldn’t be kids without a country, and we ought to allow them the life that they deserve.”

          How can anyone disagree with that with a straight face?

          As I have said numerous times, anywhere outside the 7th District, Eric Cantor is the archetype of a conservative Republican.

          You guys keep calling him a liberal and a Democrat, and the rest of the English speaking world is laughing at you.

          • Downstater

            I work in a business where i see a number of people who have worked under the table and not paid income taxes until they think they are due a refund. They all come in now so smug because they have exemption under obama and they act like they did nothing wrong, or they say that their kids are American. Well, that is only because they broke the law and came in here and produced offspring to create a placeholder for themselves so as to have an excuse. We are basically creating a system in which lawbreaking is rewarded.

          • This doesn’t make any sense. Obama didn’t make exemptions for parents of DREAM act kids. Are you sure you have your facts correct?

          • Dan

            Of course he doesn’t have his facts correct. He still believes that he is somehow being punished by “illegals.”

          • Britt Howard

            If we had an more sensible immigration policy where it wasn’t such a ridiculous process we wouldn’t have these problems. Legal immigrants will assimilate faster. It should be fair to immigrants from all countries. There should also be guest worker programs and more streamlined work visas. Clearly, we can’t deport millions of people and some sort of legalization along with reform and actual Rule of Law/enforcement. After saying all this, I still oppose the “Dream” act and these mindless “Do it for the children” arguments. What is next? “If it saves just on life”, some surrender to bad law and evil will all be worth it?

          • louexis

            I wonder if it was you that paid them under the table? You know thats breaking the law too

          • Warmac9999

            I had some brick work done on my house. Only one of the crew was bilingual, and I overheard discussions about returning home to Mexico. Of course these folks were illegal but the contractor I hired to do the work was a citizen and he couldn’t get American bricklayers at anything remotely resembling a competitive cost. Listen sometime to your handymen. They can’t get their buddies to work because the unemployment pay is to good a deal.

          • So how do we fix that problem?

          • Warmac9999

            First, value the American citizen. Stop harming his or her interests through concocting mechanism for illegal aliens to prosper. Second, how about actually enforcing existing law and punishing lawbreakers. It might be useful to punish any business or person that violates the law in favor of the lawbreaker. And while we are at it make the penalties stiff and unyielding. Third, recognize that the border is meaningful and protect it with troops just like the Mexicans are doing. Fourth, stop demeaning people who oppose amnesty. Their reasons are valid and throwing the “your mean” label at them is the stuff of the gay and race baiting agenda.

            I don’t know about you, but I have children and grandchildren who see the American work ethic and citizen values being eroded in some ignorant quest for the great socialist world order. America is exceptional because of its culture and traditions not because of this multicultural claptrap that is destroying Europe and much of western civilization. Europe is a pretty good example of the failures of the socialist, atheist, multicultural welfare state. Maybe we ought to learn from its failures as well as it’s supposed successes.

          • We value everybody. That’s the point. You aren’t harming anybody’s interests by creating a path to citizenship for these kids.

            I agree we should be enforcing existing laws, but that doesn’t mean those laws make sense any more or are working. We still need to be talking about reform.

            Putting troops on the border is a waste of time and money. We can do that job better with law enforcement and modern technology. Troops should be fighting, not manning checkpoints.

            I only demean the folks who oppose any kind of immigration reform by calling it amnesty or who demonstrate racist or nativist positions in their arguments against immigration reform.

            What I see is an American work ethic that is being eroded by lazy kids of entitled parents who think they don’t need to work to make a living anymore – and those folks are all citizens. My kid won’t be raised that way, and I don’t think the kids of most immigrants have been raised that way. My wife certainly wasn’t.

            America is exceptional because we are a nation based on ideas, not culture or ethnicity. I could care less about Europe – what works or doesn’t work there has no place here.

          • Warmac9999

            Lazy kids! Why bother to work if it is meaningless. And it isn’t just kids it is the entire welfare crowd and increasingly the hard pressed and overtaxed middle class.

            Troops on the border! We have no serious homeland security and we are not respected as a result.

            Existing laws! They don’t work if they are ignored – which they are. Racist or Nativist! How convenient to demean those with serious concerns about the arrogance and insensitivity of government. The Feds don’t care and the average person knows it. Value everybody! Then why prisons or borders or American Exceptionalism. Soooooooo, any old government will do if that is the idea.

            The founders are dead old white men out of touch with today’s problems. Yet virtually any reading of history reveals they nailed it and predicted quite explicitly what is now happening. Those dead old white guys live in the reality of today.

          • Britt Howard

            This crap about the children that you Alinsky your opposition with like Democrats do so well is just an attack on a personal level and purposely distracts from the real issue needing to be fixed. Children in Uganda, North Korea, China, or the Ukraine have done nothing wrong and are innocent. How many of them can we save. How many do we bring here. How many live in your house since you are so compassionate. When an American father goes to jail for a violent crime his children are not at fault. Sure, you can give them public assistance, but will it match what they had? No. Will the government be able to replace the father? No. The children even here legally sometimes unfairly suffer. We can’t save everyoneall around the world. Cities are going bankrupt and states are on the brink. Your argument seems to claim our assets are limitless. They are not. Nobody blames the children. Your rhetoric just uses them as a shield to apologize for a broken system and terrible solutions to problems our very lawmakers caused.

          • This doesn’t cost any money, Britt. It actually makes money. Your entire argument makes zero sense.

          • Downstater

            Brian, you can say that the so-called Dream Act has bi-partisan support blah blah blah, until you are blue in the face, but I am no longer supporting Eric Cantor after he has spit in the face of true law abiding Americans in favor of illegals, and I have called his office several times to protest. With Republicans selling us out like this, there is little reason to support the Rep. agenda over Hillary.

          • Nobody sold you out. Supporting these kids, who have done nothing wrong, is not spitting in your face. The issue doesn’t affect you personally, so I don’t really understand why you are so bent out of shape about it.

          • Warmac9999

            These kids don’t belong to a country, they belong to their family. Only in a socialist dystopia do the children belong to the state. And while we are at it, how do the children get to stay while the parents have to go? Not possible.

            The Kids Act is a subterfuge for a Parent’s Act as the kids can’t survive without their parents. My compassion is reserved for those Americans and legal immigrants who work hard and play by the rules. Send the illegal families with their kids back across the border and let the lesson of illegality come at a cost.

          • That’s some serious torturing of the English language. Those kids don’t have a country they can call home – that’s the point. They aren’t US citizens, but they are completely Americanized. The point of the program is to legitimize the kids after they turn 18 – these proposals generally all require high school educations.

            I don’t reserve compassion for anybody, regardless of their circumstances. The ones in the toughest positions tend to need it the most. We shouldn’t punish these kids for their sins of their parents.

          • Warmac9999

            If these children want to become American citizens, then have them return with their parents and apply to re-enter. By the way, don’t we send American kids all over the world to get a multicultural understanding. Why then is being fully Americanized such a big deal and it is so horrible to return to your parent’s native land for a few short years.

            As far as torturing the English language, I lived in many states as a kid and always with my parents. Blood is thicker than citizenship and has been so throughout most of American if not world history. If my parents had decided to live in Belgium, then off I would have gone. I would have had little say in the matter but the government could certainly have intervened.

            As far as punishing these illegal alien kids for the sins of their parents, it appears there is no problem punishing the kids of American parents. It appears that compassion is reserved some but not for the citizenry who have done nothing wrong. I watch as the politicians of both parties ignore the borders, the rule of law, and the Constitution. The resistance to government arrogance is rising and it isn’t just reserved for the socialists of the Democratic Party.

          • How does allowing these kids citizenship burden anybody? It doesn’t. I’m proposing that we fix the law so nobody ignores it anymore. That’s the point.

          • Warmac9999

            The rule of law requires that every American has equal access to opportunity but not every citizen of the world. By giving unmerited citizenship, you undermine the rule of law – you see the consequences of ignoring the rule of law everyday with Obama. You cannot fix the law if it will immediately be ignored.

            Do no harm by passing more laws that will be twisted and perverted for political gain.

          • Unmerited citizenship? Not exactly sure why the accident of where you are born should be considered as “merit” especially when these kids are being required to actually give back to their communities through more than just taxation.

            You fix the law so that it isn’t immediately ignored. We should be passing laws that are unenforced or unenforceable.

            The status quo isn’t acceptable.

          • Warmac9999

            The accident of where you are born is the essence of citizenship. Without it there are no nations and no borders – and no experiments on what makes for national success or failure. It is said that the states are the laboratories of democracy. Well, the nations are the laboratories of freedom or slavery, of successful or failed cultures, of progress or regress. The accident has real meaning and we ignore it at our peril.

            There is no law created by man that cannot be undone by the will of a tyrant. All “rule of law” law depends on the willingness of every citizen to abide by its principles. You either have the rule of law and freedom – or the rule of the tyrant and slavery. (You cannot have two different sets of laws and life, liberty and the opportunity to pursue happiness.). Unfortunately, history teaches that individual liberty is difficulty to obtain and easy to lose.

          • No, it isn’t. Citizenship is far more than where you happened to be born. Dumbing it down to pure luck is part of the problem here.

          • Warmac9999

            This is why the a Republican Party is less and less relevant. When citizenship is reduced to being essentially meaningless, then trust disappears. The founders of this country placed particular emphasis on citizenship and we no longer value it. As your statement implies, it has become an impediment rather than something to be celebrated.

          • You are the one proclaiming that citizenship is just birth location, not me.

          • Warmac9999

            I suggest you look up the definition of citizen.

            When man is paid for existing and no man pays for his sins,
            The lessons of past generations with horror and vengeance return

          • Warmac9999

            One final thought, political compassion has built the welfare state – and all of that was built on the idea of compassion and justice. You might want to consider Ben Franklin’s thoughts on such compassion. When asked about the best way to help the poor his reply was make them uncomfortable with their poverty. He simply meant that people, not the state, are responsible for their circumstances and that once the state gets involved, it disables the very people it intends or pretends to help.

          • Britt Howard

            “Do it for the children”. A tired tug at heart strings and guilt for not living in squalor for doing something wrong and illegal. Immigration reform and opening the process from all countries, yes. Rewarding military service, yes. However, there are provisions in these bipartisan moves that areuunacceptable. If you do it the right way we wouldn’t have these problems or the EXCUSES to pass bills that are bad but serve powerful interests that benefit from predation on an “illegal” class of people.

          • These kids didn’t nothing wrong, Britt. You can’t blame an infant if his parents sneak him across the border and raise him as an American.

            What provisions do you find unacceptable? The last version of the DREAM Act that I saw dealt with almost every concern that anybody has made that had any substance to it. What’s left to fix before you’d be willing to budge?

    • Downstater

      Yes, I agree with your statement. To try to struggle to get a job in middle age after a layoff, with hoards of imports competing at much lower wages, and then to have your representative thumb his nose at you, . I am really disappointed with Cantor as there are still some things I support him on, but this is an insult.

      • Warmac9999

        I am disgusted by the idea that I am mean if I don’t want to help the children of illegal aliens. The kids belong with their families, and their families belong elsewhere.

        If we truly have a labor shortage, then create a program with no citizenship aspects. However, we don’t have a labor shortage, we have a shortage of job seekers because they have found that welfare works well for them. All of this compassion is simply a mechanism to excuse political failure at the least, or a horrific attempt to eliminate national borders in the name of a North. American Union at the worst.

        Unfortunately, Cantor either doesn’t understand or he simply has an agenda different than the base. And, I point out, this isn’t just a Tea Party issue, it is an American citizen and the rule of law issue.

        • Donna Martin

          I totally agree. We don’t have a job shortage, we have people who don’t want to work. What about the 34,000 illegals held for deportation and Ice released. They were child molesters, kidnappers, murderers etc. Obama will do anything for a vote. You can’t compromise with Democrats. This is what you get. An animal that can rape a three year old child and released back into society. Seal the borders first and then we’ll talk. Until then there won’t be a Dream Act just a Nightmare.

        • Turbocohen

          Immigration is not a Tea Party issue unless Tea Party folks allow Cantor Young Guns or whatever to make it one.

          • Everything should be Tea Party issues if the Tea Party wants to get any credibility. You can’t pick and choose what you’re interested in if you’re actually elected.

          • Britt Howard

            Bruce, stop playing dumb. You know full well that the Tea Party is a coalition of small government fiscal conservatives. In a coalition you have to do what the establishment has refused to do. Work on common goals with other factions. Not every issue can have a position because there will be differences. Somehow we can work respectfully with each other while you guys just want to slate and purge.

          • False. I don’t know that “full well”. By yours and Cohen’s definition, the Tea Party is just a consulting group on fiscal conservative policy. That doesn’t cut it in the real world because focusing on those ideals alone end up getting you unelectable candidates.

          • Turbocohen

            Bruce, by my definition, the tea party movement is the unfortunate circumstance the liberal/moderate wings of the party find themselves challenged by. Tea Party movement issue is fiscal, not social. When the two are combined, both fail. That is where the GOP is failing though and there is a lot of crossover from Tea Party conservatives who also share very conservative social views more often than not here in VA. And ya know what, Those who disagree on social issues work well together on fiscal issues we agree on. Just like the old GOP used to when Reagan roamed the WH.

  • Richmond Republican

    I do not see anything in that Code section that would limit the ability of the Party to determine whether Cantor will be nominated by primary or convention in two years. That code section has some issues but it won’t help Cantor even as written. What are you seeing?

    • “A party, whose candidate at the immediately preceding election for a particular office other than the General Assembly (i) was nominated by a primary or filed for a primary but was not opposed and (ii) was elected at the general election, shall nominate a candidate for the next election for that office by a primary unless all incumbents of that party for that office consent to a different method.”

      This includes Congress. Cantor gets a primary until he loses a General Election. Then it’s up to the Committee to decide.

      • Richmond Republican

        You could be right. Lawyers could argue whether “but was not opposed” modifies only the second part of the “or” clause or both. If the former you are right. Then it will be down to a First Amendment challenge to the statute on freedom of association grounds.

  • Richmond Republican

    You are definitely right that Gruber has his hands full showing he can unite the party. That is the job of a leader and his initial comments do not inspire confidence. He also needs to keep in mind that he does not control the committee.

  • Britt Howard

    Norman please. McSweeney is one guy. Most of us against Cantor might even prefer Shak Hill, but are already looking to support Ed. “Turbo” Cohen? You won’t find a more hard core supporter of Ed Gillespie. Let’s not make more of one man’s comments than really is. Unless……you are rooting for continued war among factions. Here you have our side showing a willingness to work with establishment. Let’s see some return on that good faith effort. Don’t want war Cantor fans? You shouldn’t have started one.

    • NormLeahy

      Let’s not dismiss one man’s comments because they are inconvenient. Mr. McSweeney still swings some pretty big lumber in certain circles. Are they decisive? No. But they are illuminating.

      That said, I do not doubt that Ed Gillespie will win the Senate nomination. He has the appearance, and more, of inevitability. Whether he can beat Mark Warner is an open question.

      As for a “war between the factions…” from afar, it looks a lot less like a war and much more like a hissy fit.

      • Turbocohen

        Regrettably it is a war that Cantor cannot avoid taking responsibility for. If conservative voters knew what his pac was really up to as a whole the mass would not be surprised. Loo at congress approval numbers. Cantor is note exempt. Republicans are sick of this crap. There is your guy Cantor calling, got to go.

      • Britt Howard

        If you see it as a his sy fit, then the RPV is in for more problems. The establishment failing to defeat Stearns, losing to Gruber, hopefully losing to Colgate and the strongest challenge thus far to Cantor and apparently you guys think it is a hissy fit and you don’t think you have to work with us.

        I like McSweeney, and certainly he has pull. However, him saying something and a vast number from his side doing what you condescending Establishment won’t do, as in working with other factions even sane establishment people to support Ed Gillespie flys in the face of your snobbish theory. McSweeney on his own without his own side is like us supporting Cuccinelli and the Estabos staying home with clamped shut wallets. It won’t be effective. What is all your doubt casting on Ed’s chances against Warner? I wonder what side you are really on now.

        You guys are too good for us and we are throwing his sy fits, huh? Well, when sane establishment candidates get our help and the ones attacking us get Cuccinelli’d. We’ll see who is throwing a fit.

        • NormLeahy

          The term “hissy fit” applies to both sides, very equally. if you choose to see it as applying only to yourself, then that’s a problem. As for the Warner/Gillespie thing…an objective look at the race shows Warner as a formidable incumbent. Money, name recognition, and a press corps that thinks the sun shines whenever he smiles. Those combined to make Gillespie — or anyone — a long shot. Sorry if that upsets you…but there I go again, being condescending and snobbish.

          As for whose side I’m on…my own. Always have been.

          • ghostofteddalton

            Always been a damn fine commentator on Virginia politics as well.

            I agree about Mark Warner….it’s easy to say Obamacare over and over, but the guy has a little bit of Ronnie Reagan’s teflon. It just doesn’t stick to him.

            This is going to be a long year for the Virginia political class. Once the Cantor primary ends…..there isn’t going to be a competitive House race in the state. If Warner-Gillespie isn’t close, there will be “nothing to talk about.”

          • Britt Howard

            Nobody pretends that even shackled to Obamacare and the economy that Warner won’t be a formidable opponent. You sound however, like you are trying to dampen enthusiasm for Gillespie who will bring a good deal of money and infrastructure to the race.

  • Pingback: The Virginia GOP’s Civil War Continues – 757 Hampton Roads()

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.