http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-06-11.html CANTOR LOSES BY 11 MILLION VOTERS June 11, 2014 Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services 64 Economics professor Dave Brat crushed House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the Republican primary Tuesday night, in a campaign that was mostly about Cantor's supporting amnesty for 11 million illegal aliens. This marks the first time a U.S. House majority leader has ever lost a primary election. His crushing defeat reinforces a central point: Whenever the voters know an election is about immigration, they will always vote against more immigration -- especially amnesty. Cantor spent more than $5 million on his campaign. Brat spent less than $150,000. But Brat made the election about Cantor's support for amnesty, so he won. The pro-amnesty crowd -- i.e., everyone except the American people -- promptly lost its collective mind. The amnesty shills went on the attack, insisting that Cantor's historic defeat had nothing to do amnesty. Brat's triumph was touted as simply a victory for the "tea party." Of course, these are the same people who also try to persuade us that amnesty isn't "amnesty," illegal aliens aren't "illegal aliens" (they're "undocumented workers"!), and that there are 30 million jobs Americans won't do at any price. In fact, however, the tea party had nothing to do with Brat's victory. Only the small, local tea party groups stand for anything anymore, but they're as different from the media-recognized "tea party" as lay Catholics are from the Catholic bishops. National tea party groups did not contribute dime one to Brat. Not Freedom Works, not Club for Growth, not the Tea Party Express, not Tea Party Patriots. They were too busy denouncing Sen. Mitch McConnell -- who has consistently voted against amnesty. As I have been warning you, the big, national tea party groups are mostly shysters and con-men raising money for their own self-aggrandizement. (Today, they're blast-faxing "media availability" notices to television networks claiming credit for Brat's victory.) The Tea Party Express, for example, "represents" the views of ordinary Americans by supporting Chamber of Commerce demands for cheap labor through amnesty. As Eric Hoffer said, "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." Nonetheless, the claim that Brat's victory was a win for the tea party is everywhere -- pushed with suspicious insistence by people who do not usually wish the Republican Party well. Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schulz, for example, said: "Tonight's result in Virginia settles the debate once and for all -- the tea party has taken control of the Republican Party. Period." Liberals apparently want Brat's victory to be seen as a win for the tea party, and not a defeat for amnesty. At least acknowledging the obvious -- Brat's victory was about amnesty -- New York's Sen. Chuck Schumer said: "Cantor's defeat does not change the fundamental fact that Republicans will become a minority party if they don't address our broken immigration system." And if anyone has the Republican Party's best interests at heart, it's gotta be Chuck Schumer! Is Schumer's harangue enough to convince the bubbleheads in the GOP to say: Let's take it to the Democrats on this issue! They could start by asking Schumer: "How come we don't get to have the same immigration policy that Israel does?" I like Israel's immigration policy: instant, unapologetic, unsentimental deportation of illegal aliens. Schumer obviously supports that policy, too. It's one of many Israeli policies we might try here at home, if only Schumer would let us. Could it be that Schumer cares more about the survival of Israel than he does about the survival of the Republican Party? On Fox News, Mark Thiessen assured viewers that Brat's victory was not about amnesty at all, but was an expression of the same anti-establishment sentiment we've seen elsewhere this year. He specifically cited Ben Sasse's victory in the Nebraska Senate GOP primary, and Chris McDaniel's forcing incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran into a run-off in Mississippi. Let's take those: (1) Ben Sasse was running for an open seat -- there was no "establishment" Republican to defeat. (2) McDaniel has made his opposition to amnesty the centerpiece of his campaign. We're 0 for 2, so far. What else you got? There were, in fact, a couple of tea party challenges this year to so-called "establishment" Republican incumbents such as McConnell and John Cornyn. They both voted against the Schumer-Rubio amnesty. They both won. That's 0 for 4. Sen. Lindsey Graham's win last night is hardly a counter-example. His $8 million war chest discouraged serious challengers, he ended up with six opponents and, as a result, that race attracted no national anti-amnesty attention. Graham sure didn't stress his support for amnesty during the campaign. (He's saving that as a surprise!) Fox News' Carl Cameron blamed Cantor's loss on the rain: "It's worth noting that the weather was foul here yesterday and today as well. So some of it may have been nature helping out David Brat." Similarly, The New Yorker explained Cantor's loss by saying, "Low turnout undoubtedly played a role." Sixty-five thousand ballots were cast in the Cantor-Brat contest. That is not a large turnout for a congressional primary election -- it's gigantic. In Cantor's 2012 primary, 47,037 people voted. In the only other two congressional primaries in Virginia on Tuesday -- the day with all that rain! -- 38,855 people voted in one and 17,444 in the other. Every excuse in the book is being trotted out to claim this election was about anything but amnesty. Cantor was "arrogant." He was "out of touch." Democrats crossed over to vote for Brat. Cantor was "overconfident." (Also, the sun was in his eyes!) It's all the same boilerplate used to rationalize any election loss. Let's take one. Overconfident? Are you kidding me? Cantor spent more than $5 million on a congressional primary! Cantor's idiotic statements about amnesty lit up talk radio, were denounced daily on major websites such as Breitbart.com, and were the dominant theme of Brat's campaign, especially in the last few months. The influential Kausfiles.com became a one-man Eric Cantor Rapid Response Team on amnesty. Brat didn't just win; he walloped Cantor, 55.5 percent to 45.5 percent. Still not convinced Brat's victory was about amnesty? Then tell me why The New York Times ran this headline on Wednesday: "Why Did Cantor Lose? Not Easy to Explain." COPYRIGHT 2014 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
Ann makes some very good points. The national Tea Party groups want to claim credit but were not players. She is echoing some points I have heard liberals making, namely that the national Tea party groups are run by opportunists looking to line their own pockets. Of course, you could say that about pretty much any national political group. Still it's depressing.
not sure where you get your facts from... are you looking at one of lefitbillys normalized charts. you are welcome to look at the chart at the bottom of the page. revenues went up after the 2003 tax cut certainly by 2005. and they were up by 40% soon thereafter. http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway...-cuts-payments-by-wealthy-actually-increased/
But revenues did not go up after the 2001 tax cut, they continued to fall. However, spending rose the whole time.
Oh I see... you are are trying to separate them out. Where as I viewed the second one as the one that really made things happen. from wikipedia... Many of the tax reductions in EGTRRA were designed to be phased in over a period of up to 9 years. Many of these slow phase-ins were accelerated by the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), which removed the waiting periods for many of EGTRRA's changes.
More on the Tea Party "Losing Badly". LINK New York Times: 'Ascendant Tea Party' Responsible for Obama Amnesty Defeat If some pundits want to make a case that the Tea Party is dead, or dying, they might want to check with the New York Times. The paper of record rightly points out that in the people's house, not only are conservatives and conservatism alive and well, they are actually "ascendant." It might also be prudent for Republicans intent on running against Barack Obama in the mid-terms to acknowledge that it's conservatives and the Tea Party that are standing up to his damaging policies, as opposed to what purports to be the republican leadership in D.C. Oops.
None of which matters anyway, because "they did what they set out to do". Still focusing on them today puts one in danger of fetishism. ; )
Desperation is starting to show with the Teadiots. 1952 is calling, which road will the TP'ers choose: 3rd party or marginalized by the Establishment.