Skip to comments.What the “conservative” useful idiots have brought us: Week one.
Posted on 01/08/2007 8:42:14 AM PST by jmaroneps37
click here to read article
Now I understand how the 'soccermoms' put Clinton in office for eight years. As Ben Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither."
The liberal Julie-annie won't get my vote under any circumstance.
"No you don't get it. He makes a demand for "Reagan conservatives" in the very same breath as he is blasting Republicans for the deficit spending and immigration."
And why not??
Reagan would be signing vetoes on spending bills, instead of simply letting excess spending add to the deficit (as GWB and high-spending RINOs are doing). You must be making the erroneous assumption that Reagan approved of the deficits during his term, when in fact he did everything he could to avoid them, on the spending side, while trying not to weaken defense spending or make tax increases. He could have approved bigger tax increases, which he knew would do nothing to halt the spending of the Dims and he rightly saw them (tax increases) as bad on principal to begin with. He knew that every dime he gave back on defense the Dims would just add to entitlements, doing nothing for "deficits", while he also knew his campaign to weaken the Soviets demanded a defense buildup. It was not that he wanted bigger deficits, he did not want to give the Dims more of our money to play with on entitlements, by raising taxes to accomodate them.
Reagan would not be approving the Senate amnesty and non-reform give-aways in their immigration bill. He would find it excessively over "compassionate" to people who came here illegally, while economically, socially and politically excessively taxing to all current citizens, legal residents and current legal immigrants. The "amnesty" would now include 12-20 million as opposed to the 2.5 million in his day, and the new immigration levels in the bill open an immigration floodgate for a 33% increase in the U.S. population in twenty years, by immigration alone. Reagan would also be recognizing the enforcement failures, both currently and in the Senate's proposals, as his intentions for stronger enforcement were part of his demand on a compromise over the amnesty.
Hannity is criticizing spendthrift Republicans, just as Reagan tried to hold back the spending of the Dimorats. Hannity wants any immigration "reform" to include demands and assurances that the type of enforcement that Reagan asked for was actually going to happen.
What Reagan tried to get and what Hannity is criticizing some Republicans for are not inconsistent.
The fact that Reagan did not get the lower deficits he wanted or the execution of tougher immigration enforcement that he thought he obtained the law for does not displace the fact that he wanted them.
Absolutely correct. I voted, but to tell the truth, Bush sat on his ass for the last year not bothering to make the conservative pitch or defend himself against the ceaseless attacks against him and the GOP - and considering that he has the bully pulpit and the Dems offered nothing, this last election was a situation that should have been but another rout same as the last election.
I'm way more concerned about ILLEGAL immigration than some Muslim boogeyman. The Islamofascists aren't crossing our border at the rate of millions per year or packing twenty people in the house across the street. Of course Jorge Bush doesn't have to live next door to El Salvadorans blasting Salsa music from their Toyotas at all hours of the night.
OH OK --- Islamofascists are "boogeymen". Thanks for clearing that up!
Lol...just a patsy.
Nope. Straight Republican ticket (holding nose) as always.
and that you're just beginning to figure out how badly you have screwed up.
My RINO senator -- Warner (whom I voted for *again* in '02) -- is reportedly one of the ten RINO senators preparing to stand with the Dems in opposition to President Bush's new Iraq policy. So, yes, I may have indeed screwed up.
But, as the argument goes, if someone is going to subvert our national security, then better he be a RINO than a Democrat....
That said, if you want the border secured, go ask Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid to do so.
Who's being snarky now?
I understand that that may be the case in ohio,pa va etc. Here in georgia it will be some time before running as anything but conservative will bear fruit.
I'm not sure what argument you are referring to - I am certainly no Bush-basher. I was arguing with those who felt the 2006 election would teach the GOP a lesson. If you want to argue that point - I'd be happy to argue with you about it.