Another Restrictionist Loses

Yesterday, the Republicans lost the Congressional seat in Illinois’ 14th District, an area that probably hasn’t gone Democratic since Abe Lincoln was a babe in arms. This is, of course, a difficult year for the GOP, but one factor leaps out in this particular race. The Republican candidate, a rich and so far unsuccessful political dilettante named Jim Oberweis, built much of his campaign around the allegedly urgent need to restrict immigration. In the minds of the restrictionists, that’s the issue that will fire up the demoralized Republican “base” and offset the Democrats’ fervor for defeat in Iraq. It didn’t work that way. Like its cousin protectionism, immigration restrictionism polls well, but for some reason its supporters are like the famous “Obama girl”; they talk loudly but never get around to casting votes.

Further reading: The Wall Street Journal, “Lose and Learn”:

Republicans such as Mr. Oberweis remain convinced that illegal immigration is a winning issue. And if the electorate were comprised mostly of Internet screechers and cable news anchors, they might be right. But the fact that Mr. McCain, the Presidential candidate most closely associated with immigration tolerance, has outlasted Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and other immigration hardliners, should be an indication that other issues are foremost in the minds of even GOP voters.

Comments

[Mike Kriskey]

I think it's a mistake to focus on one issue and claim it's the reason for any given Republican's defeat.

You--and the editors in today's Wall Street Journal--choose to focus on Oberweis's stance against illegal immigration. But John Fund (also in the WSJ) and David Freddoso of National Review wrote articles yesterday about this race that give many reasons for Oberweis's defeat without once mentioning illegal immigration.

There are a host of reasons Republicans are in trouble. And I think we'd agree that any politician who runs a one-note campaign on tougher border controls is foolish. But that doesn't mean illegal immigration shouldn't be an issue at all.

John Fund:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120511425577623511.html

David Freddoso:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjU2NjRkYjg1ZmVjZDM0NTRkNWMzZTJlYjRiOGIzZmQ=&w=MA==

WSJ editorial:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120519518964925781.html

[Tom Veal]

I’m sure that the preceding commenter intended to make a point. What it was, I have no idea. So far as I can recall, the only competitive race in 2006 where abortion was a key issue was Santorum-Casey in Pennsylvania, where it was the Democrats who, by nominating an ostensible pro-lifer, moved toward the conservative position.

[Mike Kriskey]

The last congressional election could be used to tell pro-life politicians to lay off the abortion issue. Sure, moderate restrictions on abortion poll well, but people don't really care about abortion when it comes time to pull the lever.