Message to Death Wish Republicans: You Can't Win By Losing

Town Hall ^ | September 8, 2006 | Michael Medved

[quidnunc]

The widespread frustration in this electoral season has given rise to perhaps the dumbest political idea in recent U.S. history: the notion that the way to advance the conservative cause is to insure the defeat of conservative candidates.

Frequent callers to my radio show have echoed the arguments of numerous e-mailers, and a few fringe commentators, suggesting that a Republican wipeout in November of 2006 would punish the GOP for its many failures and betrayals, thereby insuring the emergence of a new, more conservative, more ideologically committed party in place of the feckless current operation. Another element of this demented desire for defeat involves the belief that life under the Democrats would prove so bitter, so unendurable, that after a few years of suffering the public would welcome back the Republicans with enthusiasm and gratitude. To bolster this case, the Death Wish Republicans cite Jimmy Carter's narrow victory over Gerald Ford in 1976. After four years of utterly incompetent leadership by the pompous peanut farmer, the Republicans nominated a true, unaplogetic conservative named Ronald Reagan and he won in a landslide.

There are several obvious points that discredit these silly arguments for anyone who wants to give the issue more than a moment's thought.

First, and most importantly, the idea that Republicans can benefit from making the country suffer under Democratic misrule is disgusting, selfish, idiotic and unpatriotic. Can there be any more revolting example of putting partisan advantage over the national welfare? Anyone who seriously believes that it's worth damaging the nation to bring about future political gain is not only a fool, but the sort of traitorous fanatic who should never be trusted in responsible positions.

Consider for a moment the real example of Jimmy Carter, so beloved of Death Wish Republicans. Under his watch, the Soviets invaded Aghanistan (beginning a nightware from which we still haven't awakened), the Communist Sandinistas seized Nicaragua, and the Islamo-Nazi Mullahs deposed the Shah (with Carter's cooperation) and installed the fanatical regime that still threatens the world today. On the domestic front, Carter launched vast new governmental programs (including the utterly unnecessary new cabinet departments of Energy and Education) that neither Ronald Reagan nor any subsequent president has managed to eliminate. In other words, the appallingly inept Georgian did permanent damage to the country, both domestically and in foreign policy, from which all Americans still suffer, but the political gain for the GOP was merely temporary: by 1986, a mere six years after Carter left office, the Dems had regained control of the Senate and just six years after that they took back the White House (for two terms of Clinton). You can't build a successful political movement for the long term on the idea that you're going to turn over power to your opponents so they will proceed to wreck the country.

-snip-

[Amerigomag]

Three other assumptions are faulty as well.

Typical of a partisan, the viewpoint that not voting for a particular candidate is voting third party. Electors vote for candidates, not parties. Their choices are driven by a majority of common interests, not partisanship.

That somehow, refusing to exercise franchise, is excusable. Failing to vote removes your voice and guarantee NO influence over government. None. Those who refuse to participate because they feel their choices are limited are failing the responsibilities of a participatory democracy. I am not aware of any political subdivision in the US were the electorate's choice of a candidate is limited to those that qualified to be listed on the ballot.

The whimsy about political parties being forced to abandon core values to survive against a changing enemy was especially creative and a glimpse into the soul of a partisan. Victory, regardless of outcome or consequence.

I take comfort that the author is working his rhetorical magic on the other side of the country. We have enough of the breed in California

[DustyMoment]

Yes, thank you. As a former Texan, I'm VERY well aware of the biannual Austin side show.

:-)

[Cold Heat]

Jeff, You are basing your arguments on a few threads at FR.

This site is a echo chamber. No matter what you see here, the immigration issue is not on the front burner nationally. Nor is current federal spending, unless it is on Iraq.

The real battle is a social war between Conservative and Liberals, and Conservative and more socially moderate Republicans in the RNC. The other poster was not creating a straw man, it is real.

Immigration is only one of many symptoms, as is spending on things like Medicare drugs which are in party baseball, and not a national issue, no matter how hard Lou Dobbs tries to make it one.

The National issues are the war, economy, health care, education and somewhere down the list are immigration and spending, if you can find it.

If you care to look, the social conservatives are aligned with the Buchannonites and hyper venting isolationists, combined with various and sundry Bush hate groups to form the anti-amnesty coalition. Half of these people are not and never have been republicans, and the rest have bought into the fear mongering for various reasons like spending, jobs, social services, and yes....... race. We lost our Arkansas FReeper group as a direct result of it. But many are legit, and come from the areas affected. I try to listen to these folks and take them seriously, but they are so angry, they can't focus.

They have driven a wedge into the base that is not going to go away. They continue to pound that wedge, even though victory for them is doing nothing about immigration.

Lay down with dogs, and you get up with fleas. Something will get done on immigration one day, but it will not be a fence, or the military.

It will be done by the only people who can do it Constitutionally and regulatory wise, and that is the affected States. Short of something like the Bush plan, congress will not be able to get the votes. After they thrash around for a couple more years, the states affected will force them to act, to remove the problem of a cultural subclass that has been created by our decades of bungling with border control.

That is how I see it. The splits are mostly all social, with a few fiscal and otherwise supporters. The Libertarian party split on this issue as well. Libertarians are the true open border crowd. At least they will get back to basics.

Republicanism, and Conservatism share a lot of believes and opinion. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bath. The only way to get a seat at the table is through the party. No independent party can win in this environment, and Conservatives have moved the party all they can. the primaries are over and the election looms large.

No point in continuing to fight. You are hurting your chances to have that seat at the table of power.IMO

I rambled about a bit, but I think this was coherent....I need some coffee and a couple pain pills....:-)

[skeeter]

If I get any more PO'd than I am now over this, I know a few social conservatives, who will be on the ballot in November who will not get my vote.

'nuff said.

[JeffAtlanta]

The marches by immigrants in the streets this spring were real - they didn't just take place on FR.

[Cold Heat]

If I have to hold my nose, then so should you.

I have reservations about electing uber religious conservative people to high government positions. I'm not talking about a normal church goer and Sunday school teacher, I'm talking about a evangelical preacher type who lives the life and expects everyone else should do the same or get out.

I made a mistake voting for Huckabee but I had to hold my nose. He waited until his second term to pass anti-smoking measures, tax measures and various regs to clean up the human condition. He, like many who say conservative things, are just politicians.

Bush, on the other hand is a Methodist and I understand methodists. They don't mess with things like freedoms for the sake of good, and they have a bit of a libertine streak, which matches my incredible personality....(grin).

These are the sorts of choices I have to make. I make them based on the alternative, and which is worse.

I think everyone should do that, but to some, just saying they are conservative and throwing a bit of red meat is enough. I'll take a honest man over that, even if he is a bit less conservative than I.

Huckabee is term limited and running for president. he should get a lot of conservative interest! Hope you like him...(sarcasm)I'll be voting for ASA Hutchinson for governor. He has been severely trashed on this site by conservatives. They celebrated his leaving homeland security because of the immigration issue, and the libertarians trashed him on drugs. The democrats hate him because of the impeachment trial.

Therefore, he's the right man for the job.

There is no way that I can identify with a lot of things that conservatives of this day, do or say. They have changed, or i have, I am not sure which. I grew up on conservative shows and reading, I don't see a lot of similarity between what people call conservative today. There are some things that I have changed my mind on over time. Not many.

About the only thing I can think of is the Medicare drug plan and the education programs. Our standing as a country that takes care of it's elderly was falling behind, because we did not cover the prescription drugs that now have become such a large part of medicine. I did not think it nonconservative to support it. I also supported the "No child" program because I saw how stupid our high school grads were.

I support the war, i support the troops, I am a veteran of the Nam era and I support Rummy.

but because I have different ideas on how to solve the immigration problem, I get slammed as a RINO, a false prophet, and during the shiavo debate, I was called the spawn of Satan. During the ports debate a friend of Saddam and during Miers, I cannot recall all the invectives.

If you think for one second that I am sad or upset about not being identified with people who appear to be sociopaths, or at least Bipolar, you are dead wrong!

It pleases me to know that I have some scruples left and that I think independently. Right, wrong, but never indifferent.

Have a great weekend.....

[Prime Choice]

Medved is saying don't help Democrats in the general election. If we want to get rid of liberal Republicans, we do so in the primary.

Good luck with that. Every RINO-coddling "big tent" moron in the party always screeches that conservatives are "unelectable" in the primaries. Then, after incessantly assailing the only true Republican in the race, they then demand everyone support their "moderate" (spelled L-I-B-E-R-A-L) candidate who's "got a better chance."

And if anyone balks, they're branded as "voting for [insert demonic Dem here]."

Forget that noise. I've had it with these liberals with an 'R' by their name and their apologists. All told, they're just as bad as Democrats, if not worse.

[skeeter]

If you think for one second that I am sad or upset about not being identified with people who appear to be sociopaths, or at least Bipolar, you are dead wrong!

Thats the LAST thing I'd suspect. You are obviously proud of your distain of people you call 'social conservatives'.

What I do believe is what you (and others here) have done is create a 'conservative' boogeyman template - a composite stereotype with all kinds of ugly attributes - which you use to characterize people with whom YOU disagree.

Your kidding yourself if you think you are any better than the individuals who you malign.

And I don't care what kind of weekend you have.

[Cicero]

Well, I didn't mention McCain because I'm not sure if he qualifies as a RINO. He hangs out with the MSM for purely personal reasons--he loves publicity.

But I certainly agree with you, and so would probably at least 90% of Freepers. I wouldn't vote for him under any circumstances, not only because he's a lying traitor to his party, not only because he betrayed his fellow MIA/POWs in Vietnam, but also because he's too insane to trust with the nuclear football. He's Dr. Strangelove in spades, who would start a nuclear war just for the hell of it.

[Cold Heat]

The marches by immigrants in the streets this spring were real - they didn't just take place on FR.

And that bothered you? March back at them...They were not asking for much in any case. The Mexican flags were a mistake, and they paid the price for that politically. They are very proud of their heritage, nothing more.

However, they have been infiltrated by the same sort of extremists and activists, that the other side has been infiltrated by. not wanting to go into detail, but I can in private. I have watched it happen with interest. This happens a lot lately. This is where the hyperbole originates. Again, on both sides of the debate.

We need to be constantly on guard for it. You should not debate hyperbole of any sort. Facts matter.

Therefore, I am not afraid of Mexicans or the related hyperbole of invasion and Azatlan, but I am concerned about uncontrolled immigration and the potential pools of undocumented and the resulting lack of social integration. This is bad.

I believe it can be prevented by controlling the jobs at the state and local level, and souring the milk, so to speak. I also believe that we cannot allow people to remain undocumented.

At the same time, we need to increase border controls, for reasons of security and to help with the immigration problem, but I understand the difficulty of protecting so many miles of border, so by it's self, it cannot be very effective as they will adjust and come in at differing unguarded points.

You must do this internally. You must deal with the citizen children of the undocumented, and we must get them integrated socially.

That's what I believe.

How we get there was debated, and apparently needs to be debated again. But I don't think we will get anywhere during the election cycle. It also requires some compromises, and I don't see that happening either right now.

As it stands now, there will be little more done but what was planned to do. The problem will continue to build, and if Mexico has a revolution, we will have big problems no matter what we could do or have done.

Whatever we do, must be comprehensive in nature to correct a complex problem. Half measures will only hurt the problem and compound the difficulty and risk.

[Cold Heat]

What, you expect me to be happy when I get peed on?

I did not start this crap, and I have been trying to correct it for years on this forum.

Just telling you like it is. If you stop the rhetorical crap slinging, then the defensive moves will not be necessary.

There is no way you can say that the moderates(or insert label here) started the fight.

I'm just tired of having to defend myself from nonsense. If you care about the conservative cause, you will do as Reagan did, and not say bad things about fellow republicans. That is how coalitions are built and remain strong.

Unfortunately, this one is shot to heck....and it looks like it will remain so, based on my recent observations.

And the election is in less than 90 days.

[Reily]

Look the electorate is roughly split reliable 40-45% democrat votes & 40-45% reliable GOP votes. The battle is for the remaining 10-20%. This group is only marginally aware of the "great issues" of the day. They are squishy get-along-go-along types who mostly want to be comfortable. (In some sense I am sympathetic!) They are heavily influenced by fashion & trends. They get most of their information & thinking templates from TV and the MSM. Political messages have to be fashioned to appeal to this basically apolitical but voting group. Why do you think every political statement has somewhere buried in it something about "for the children". Why do you think that political conventions are nothing but "fuzzy-feel-good festivals". I don't like it any better then you do but that is the reality on the ground! Some states have more of these "sheep" then others, hence why RINOS exist. However RINOS give us control of Congress. Control of Congress maintains momentum. I fear the day we slide back into Democrat control of the WH & Congress. Particularly with this Moonbat group owned by MoveOn.org in charge. Read Horowitz'z new book "The Shadow party". Soros will then present his bill and demand payment. I usually do not succumb to "tinfoil hat conspiracy" BUT Horowitz knows the Hard-Dangerous-Left better then any political writer out there ! He was a Red Diaper Baby & a 60s' Hard Left radical!(Soros actually sponsored a hard left group to write a new US constitution. How do you think traditional values will fare with that document?) We need to hang on to power until a responsible 2nd party emerges. We need a vigorous 2 party system. However we can't have a 2 party system when one party is essentially treasonous !

[FairOpinion]

YOu are a perfect example of the phony conservatives ( i.e. Dem operatives) described in this article, who are trying to get conservatives throw away their votes on third party candidates or not vote, so a Dem can get elected.

====

"The premise follows a scheme previously found most often on talk radio programs: a liberal activist calls a conservative radio host, such as Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham, and delivers the line: “I’ve been voting Republican for 30 years, but I’ve finally had it and I’m not voting this year.” Or my favorite: “I’m a Reagan Republican, but I’m fed up and voting for John Kerry.” (Because that is what Reagan Republicans would do, vote for John Kerry.) At this point, the host usually asks a couple of questions and it becomes painfully obvious that the supposed Reagan Republican has probably never voted for anyone right of Michael Dukakis.

The intentions are clear: the caller hopes to make it appear as though there is already a large uprising of conservatives who are rebelling against GOP candidates, and thus, wishes to incite other Republicans to pick up the same attitude and pass it along, leading to the Democrat becoming more competitive. The successes of such a strategy on voting habits are unclear, especially given that the conservative radio host often refutes the caller’s talking points.

But the pretend-conservative act is being carried onto a whole new playing field, one that has become wildly influential over the past few years and one that does not stand to be instantly recognized as a fake. That playing field is the blogosphere, which is then used in conjunction with massive e-mailings to “spread the word” (as one e-mailer insisted I do to my readers/e-mail list) to other conservatives.

The concept is the same: the blog or e-mail claims, first, that the said writer has been a conservative for years and that they have “had it with Republicans.” They then point to an issue that conservatives would likely be upset about such as excessive spending, immigration, or the expansion of government. Their supposed rage over the issue has convinced them to either not show up to vote in 2006, or, in order to really show Republicans, vote for the Democrat instead. "



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1613957/posts?page=87#87

[skeeter]

If you care about the conservative cause, you will do as Reagan did, and not say bad things about fellow republicans.

Like calling them sociopaths? Good grief listen to yourself.

I agree these threads are frustrating, though. I share every one of your complaints, but in reverse. So we go round and round.

I am aware coalitions win elections. Being a California conservative I have held my nose more than any voter should have to. The irony of you lecturing me on that score is almost too much to bare.

The big difference between you and I, though, is your insufferable self-righteousness, which you yourself don't seem to recognize.

Look - 'social conservatives' are in this party to stay. Get used to it, to borrow your phrase.

[Amerigomag]

Don't look my direction.

I didn't post those outlandish statements on a conservative forum. I simply pointed out the obvious, situational hypocrisy.

I'm not encouraging conservatives to help oust conservative candidates by not voting. Working to defeat conservative candidates or failing to support conservative candidates is counterproductive for both conservatives and the GOP. Campaigning on FreeRepublic to elect a liberal Republican is equally counterproductive and offensive to forum members.

Conservatives can survive without the Republican Party. The Republican Party can survive without conservatives. But, since the traditional marriage has worked well for both ...

The only practical method a conservative has to stop the leftward drift of the Republican Party is to refuse to support the rare, liberal candidate that a very few, renegade, GOP, state organizations offer for public office.

In those isolated cases that conservative backlash is routinely delivered in the partisan primary. But, in those exceedingly rare instances when a state party closes the primary to legitimate opposition to protect that liberal from the inevitable collapse at the polls, then that message has to be delivered during the general election. That monkey is on the back of the renegade state party organization, not its core constituency

This situation was not the subject of Medved's oration but it should have been.

[FairOpinion]

Your are urging conservatives to defeat Arnold, which results in the election of leftist socialist Angelides. All your actions clearly help Angelides.

In the meantime, a REAL conservative, Tom McClintock has THIS request to conservatives:

"Like many of us, I too have disagreements with some of the Governor's proposals. These differences, however, do not justify the abandonment of our party's responsibility to work tirelessly to reelect this Republican governor and to elect our GOP candidates to statewide and legislative offices.

For this reason, I view any effort to attack Governor Schwarzenegger as an attack on my own candidacy and those of every Republican seeking partisan office in 2006. "

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1568122/posts?page=51#51

[Badray]

Their tent is different from ours. They are a huge coalition of 'gimmees'. They all want something from government. Each groups wants it's own thing, but they only compete for priority, not existence.

Gay rights, welfare rights, animal rights, abortion rights, the environment, etc,. You name it, they are all there and they all rely on bigger government and more taxes. Taking from the productive to give to the non-productive.

If the abortion champion wins the primary, that doesn't mean that the other groups will be tossed aside.

In the GOP 'big tent', pro abortion champions vie against pro life champions. Gun grabbers vie against pro gun folks.
Those who like big government compete against small government advocates.

Which ever side wins, someone's views do get kicked to the curb. I won't vote for the gun grabber just because he won the primary for my 'tent'. Nor will the pro abortionist work for the pro life winner.

In all of these issues, they are core issues, heart felt values that mean a lot to voters who will not just 'take one for the team' and support someone who will vote against values that are at their core.

Think what you will of single issue voters, that is the reality and the GOP better realize that they cannot be all things to all people. They have to stand for something and since the dems have the leftist side pretty well staked out to be their territory, the GOP would do well to let them have those issues and take the side that always favors limited government supported by lower taxes and appreciates individual liberty. Or they can struggle every election and start to lose.

[Amerigomag]

ROFL

The appearance of a Republican Party operative on a conservative forum, haranguing conservatives because they won't support a liberal, is mindful of a Mexican marching to the steps of nearby US state capitol and demanding in-state tuition at the local, state sponsored public university.

The former would simply be whimsical nonsense if it were not for the juvenile vitriol that accompanies each attack. With time, the situation will change and both the Mexican and the partisan will be forcefully repatriated.

[kcbc2001]

In my area, the local dems who win are "conservative pro-life" Dems. But if they want the national or state-wide office, then they go pro-choice (for the most part or do the "abortion should be rare, but legal" bs).

And a lot of the Republican candidates are "candidates in name only", so it really doesn't matter if they are RINO's or not because they aren't going to do any campaigning for themselves and willingly lose. That's not the way to make anyone think that your party deserves to win.

[Miss Marple]

I don't know. I fervently hope that if Laffey wins the primary, he can rally enough support to keep the seat. Rhode Island is pretty democratic, though. I have flagged someone who might be able to give us an accurate appraisal.

[Cold Heat]

I don't want them to go, just to play nice in the sand box.

The primary difference when you boil it down to a single thought is that social conservatives put principle above all else, including the party strategy.

I put the party ahead of principle and this totally irritates many conservatives. they cannot understand it and they let me know.

I used to be that way, but I matured over many battles and realized that is you lose the war because you invoked principle, you lose your place to espouse it and you no longer matter in the debate.

All societies and religions have this little nugget of info in their words of wisdom. In Christianity it is called turning the other cheek. In the secular world it is phrased in all sorts of ways but all generally means to hold your tongue, or keep the mouth strategically shut.:-) Confucius has something, but I forget. "Patience Grasshopper" comes from TV land...:-)

Anyway, I have tested the notion plenty, and they are right. I have lost a few times as a result of putting principle above all, and perhaps it shows in my debate style. But it does not mean that I am wrong.

Two years ago we had everything. We owned congress and were gaining seats. Up until a month ago, I was pretty confident that we would lose only about 5 seats, maybe six. Now it looks like 10-11, and it is all because of party infighting that has breathed new life into the Dem's. Here we are, at around sixty days, and it seems to be getting worse. people claiming they are staying home and such. I have seen this all before.

This week I decided to get involved on the forum, one more time. I just want to point out a few things and get people to think a bit, rather than react. After this, I'll stay off these threads until after the election. I prefer the foreign relations and global economic threads, and that is where my interest lies. I like a few other topics, but none are more divisive to me then religion and immigration, so I can only tolerate it occasionally. I sound self righteous, because I am hardened, and pushing 60. I have experienced enough political heartbreak for any one lifetime. I know what happens when coalitions breakdown. Especially during wartime.

So I'm done.....I really do hope you have a great weekend...:-)

[taxed2death]

"Maybe the Always Angry might want to keep in mind it was Senate Democrats that fillibustered to keep any of the US House Republican Boarder Enforcement provisions out of the Senate immigration bill."

"Boarder"

dude, put a sock in it.

We need to purge the RINO's.

[taxed2death]

"And then there are Juges.'

spellcheck is our friend.

My head is stsrtin' to hurt readin' your posts.

[taxed2death]

re:post 166. Note to MHJohnie.....it's all about the RINO's bro......no ones yacking about voting out conservative Repubs......chill.

[Tribune7]

First, and most importantly, the idea that Republicans can benefit from making the country suffer under Democratic misrule is disgusting, selfish, idiotic and unpatriotic.

ditto that

[Major Matt Mason]

I don't want them to go, just to play nice in the sand box.

Until moderates end their backstabbing ways, I will continue to kick them in the teeth. They do not deserve to be treated nicely, as they are no different than snooty, know-it-all liberals. Trust me, I know, I live in NY State.

It was moderates that had this party in the wilderness for decades, and they seem hellbent on taking us back there. The failures of the past few years are not the fault of conservatives, but then, would a moderate know what failure is given their squishy worldview?

[Colorado Buckeye]

Part of the dem's strength is their inclusive big tent policy

Strength, what strength? They don’t even know where they're going. They have one wing that is flying headlong into gay marriage. Another wing wants to let a billion people from the third world flood in. A third wing is still stuck on feminism, whatever that is, and abortion.

A fourth wing simply hates all corporations. Then there is the gun-grabber wing and another that is absolutely convinced that the earth will die, literally, simply because humans happen to live here.

An aircraft with more than two wings is not much of a flying machine, except, of course, for the special case that we call a helicopter. And that’s what the Democrats are. They don’t really resemble a big tent, but are more like a helicopter with a sputtering tail rotor.

[beaversmom]

Thanks to justiceseeker93 for the MM ping. Anyone want on or off this low volume ping list for Michael Medved articles, events, etc., plese send me an FR mail.

Eveningstar; hitmanLV; grame; swake; bitt; shoot this thing; right in east lansing; itsamelman; softballmom; libertarianizethegop; conservative4life; abby4116; justiceseeker93; rushcrush; usafearsnobody; headsonpikes; tiggs; rahbert; bradyls; latina4dubya; missmarmelstein; kevindavis; sinkspur; goppachyderm; csm; Owl_Eagle; varmintxer; gopwinsin04; navynucmom; hattend; LibertyLee; 76834; jeremiah; pollyannaish; nuclady; Unrepentant VN Vet; La Enchiladita; Sensei Ern; Jo Nuvark; sofaman; HonestConservative

[beaversmom]

My philosophy as well.

[Badray]

Medved is dead wrong.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

As a Californian, I would vote for ANY Repub over any Dem.

[tkathy]

"We need to purge the RINO's."

The true RINOs are those who are always going after republicans instead of going after democrats. And the true RINOs are those who are always threatening to not vote rep.

[MissAmericanPie]

Tell me, who decides to put forward presidential candidates like Mc Cain and Gulianno? I hope you are not denying that there are two branches of Repubicans, the base and the richie riches at the top.

We are given the option of tweedle dee or tweedle dumb. And that choice does not spring from the base.

[FairOpinion]

"The true RINOs are those who are always going after republicans instead of going after democrats. And the true RINOs are those who are always threatening to not vote rep."

====

EXACTLY!!!!

[suburban_republican]

Ditto that again. Thanks for posting, T7, an excellent read.

[melancholy]

The Dem traitors realize that in order to win any election they have to ruin the country They know they can't rule without knocking out the traditional American values and patriotism.

Shall we accommodate them? I know I won't.

[EveningStar]

To the misc ping list

[StarCMC]

*Anyone who seriously believes that it's worth damaging the nation to bring about future political gain is not only a fool, but the sort of traitorous fanatic who should never be trusted in responsible positions.*

Excellent point -- thanks for the ping, ES!

[Just A Nobody]

Thanks Mel! Saving for later. Leaving for Freedom Walk soon.

[EveningStar]

CH, I've glanced at some of your posts on this thread and you quite obviously don't get it.

Look, compromising is for fools. It's better to lose on principal. Also, reasonable comments never solved anything. It is much better to use slogans, plattitudes, cheap shots, and one-liners. And critical thinking is for wusses. Stubborn ignorance is what really saves the day.

[Cold Heat]

:-)

[KC_Conspirator]

No matter what you see here, the immigration issue is not on the front burner nationally.

I am going to have to disagree. You list out issues that do trump illegal immigration, but I think illegal immigration has definately jumped up the issue rankings. Its got to the point that millions of illegal immigrants protested and did not go to work for a day. Thats big news.

It is not the a primary issue facing America, but it is a big one.

Don't worry I will hold my nose and vote in November.

[Cold Heat]

I'm not worried......:-)

I agree they moved the issue, and that more people are aware now.

It's just that the issue resided on the right, and is tearing us apart, yet will have no effect on democrats, so it is more of a inside baseball issue, rather than a National one.

In other words, I see no democrats or independent swingers voting for a republican as a result of the issue.

I just have not seen it, but concede the fact that after it is over, there could be some measurable effect.

But, looking at the places where immigration is a hot topic, like California, the counter forces seem to balance it out. The anti-immigration issues there have been subdued by the local electorate and associated politics. (Schwarzenegger's failures)) and they are central to the issue and the place where the majority of stories come from.

[WatchingInAmazement]

Cold heat: No matter what you see here, the immigration issue is not on the front burner nationally.

Right!! You are ignoring all the polls on this.

That's why EVERY congressman who returns from break says, "all anyone wanted to talk about was immigration!"

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0609/p03s02-uspo.html

"Back from a week in their home districts, members on both sides of the aisle report a growing disconnect between Congress and constituents on issues ranging from war to fuel prices. But voters seem to be reserving their greatest frustration for immigration."

"Members of Congress may have been on recess for the past two weeks, but even back in their home districts, immigration reform proved to be the burn no lawmaker could escape. "I've never seen an issue with this much intensity," says Nevada's Sen. John Ensign, who says he was harangued by constituents and even his own relatives."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060501/1immigrate.htm

But House members say they are convinced that their voters came to a very different conclusion from the marches -- the problem of illegal immigration is even more troubling than they thought, and House Republicans must stand by their position.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/14/AR2006051400778.html

[stocksthatgoup]

Medved is Correct! Electing Bill Clinton did nothing for this nation. The cost was terrible.

[Cold Heat]

I really have a hard time with polling validity.

The American public has largely become trained sock puppets. The issue of the day is polled weekly, and whatever interest group that can use the results will do so..

I have no clue as to their validity, as they change with the question asked. This has always been the case. As a result, you will never see me arguing a point based on polling.

For example, if you ask the question, "Are you in favor of the invasion by illegals in the U.S.?" the answer received will be obvious.

Contrary to these polls, when asked "What are the most important issues in the coming years?" the poling results don't place immigration in the top 4 categories.

This is how I see it and why I made the comment.

[B.O. Plenty]

...conservatives will never accomplish a thing until there is a conservative majority in Congress...

and the way to do that is via the primaries. Take out the RINOs there and not by surrendering their seats to a stalanist 'rat. Dang...majority numbers mean things...It means that the majority party gets to set the rules...and the Republican party, even with the RINOS is still miles more conservative than the 'rat party.

If you can't get the RINOs this time, get them next time.

Go vote Republican....hold your nose if you have to, but do not stay home! A 'rat takeover of the Congress is too horrible to imagine.

[Chunga]

Forget that noise. I've had it with these liberals with an 'R' by their name and their apologists. All told, they're just as bad as Democrats, if not worse.

This is a stupid comment.

The Democrats have just exposed themselves as the party of Stalin via their attempts to censor free speech; they are the party of smear campaigns, stolen FBI files, blackmail, illegal contributions from the communist Chinese, the selling of state secrets in exchange for cash, appeasement in the War On Terror, liberal judicial appointees, attacking a President's integrity during wartime, enabling subornation of perjury, engaging in abuse of power, conspiracy to bring down a sitting President, White House sleepovers and soliciting campaign cash on government property; they are the party supported by the liberal media, the Communist Party USA and their talking points regarding President Bush read like press statements from the media arm of Al Qaida.

If RINOs are worse than Democrats, why is every liberal organ in the world doing everything within its power to get Democrats elected?

What a moronic point of view!

[KC_Conspirator]

In other words, I see no democrats or independent swingers voting for a republican as a result of the issue.

Well, I actually believe it will sway a few. Not enough to make a difference. For example, its the great elephant in the room here in the DC area. The people on Capitol ignore the issue, pretending its not there, while many people who live in/near the Beltway are irritated that every 711 and Home Deport parking lot in the area is packed with illegals looking for work.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Don't worry about me...I plan to vote Republican in November...mostly. :-)