Why are Berger allies picking a fight on immigration?
It’s an odd line of attack against a guy known for being tough on the border.
Sen. Phil Berger has a lot of smart people working on his campaign. A lot better and more experienced than I am in winning elections. So I fully admit that I might be missing something here, but I am truly baffled by the approach the main pro-Berger PAC has been taking over the past week.
NC True Conservatives has launched a new series of attacks against Rockingham County Sheriff Sam Page, calling him soft on immigration.
I’ve seen a mailer saying he “opposes deportation of illegal aliens,” and there’s also this new video ad.
What’s strange here is that immigration is arguably Page’s strongest point in a Republican primary. The sheriff was a border hawk long before it was trendy. Way before he was the anti-casino guy, Page was the immigration guy.
Meanwhile, Berger has real history on this issue that his opponents can use against him. Berger led the effort in 2013 to override Gov. Pat McCrory’s veto of a bill that would add more loopholes to North Carolina’s E-Verify law. The bill basically said that cracking down on illegal labor would hurt the agriculture industry.
The attacks on Page are misleading at best. I broke down the video ad here:
Anyway, because Berger’s team is as seasoned as they come, I’ve been trying to figure out what the play is.
My best guess is preemptive defense. If you’re getting hit in a soft spot, you want to muddy the water as much as possible. You don’t have to convince every voter of the attack. You just need to create enough doubt.
Still, I don’t see Republican primary voters buying that Sam Page is soft on immigration. Good attacks usually press on something voters are already predisposed to worry about. Think Mitt Romney and the “47 percent” ads from 2012.
Maybe this pro-Berger PAC is seeing polling that I don’t have, but it just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
Berger singlehandedly blocked a bill I worked with Rep Cleveland for ten years to get passed. It was designed to force the Clerks of Courts to share jury disqualification information with election officials. In the 7th year of the fight, he lost his veto-proof majority by one Senator and THAT was when he finally let it pass! After gutting most of it's effectiveness, he renamed it in such a way that it guaranteed a Cooper veto. And no. They never attempted an override. That way, he could tell us rubes that he "fought for the bill," but that waskely wabbit, Cooper, wouldn't let it pass. Bottom Line: Just like Tillis... Berger's a globalist, owned and operated by big multi-national corporations.
This is really sharp political analysis! I've been following NC politics kinda loosely but hadn't thought about the preemptive defense angle before. The point about muddying the waters makes alot of sense strategicaly even if it seems counterintuitive at first. Thanks for breaking it down!