Posted on 01/27/2007 8:55:29 AM PST by spintreebob
So far, the response seems to be that the hard-liners would prefer to live in their pretend world than in the world of reality. How is that dis-honesty any different from other forms of dis-honesty.
Note, I am not saying that everybody loves illegals (like I do). But the reality is that most people, including many conservative Republicans, just don't see the reason for the hysteria and irrational passion.
Another way to put it is that the antis are not adept at PR. They are not effective in communicating their message. Their method of communicating their message is generally counterproductive (with 1 exception apparently).
"Graf, who was running for the seat of immigration moderate (and fellow Republican) Jim Kolbe, got financial support from the border-patrolling Minuteman project. Both men lost congressional seats in districts that had twice voted for George W. Bush."
>>Ouch, that has got to hurt the Bush hating true conservatives on FR, right in the family jewels.
Well, at least in Graf's situation, it doesn't help when the President's men kneecap you. Bush is pro ILLEGAL immigration. If you are proud of that then I'm sure you can delude yourself into believing anything.
Not finding Bush on the ballot, voters instead smote Congressional Republicans. Such was the voters wroth,and the illegal issue could not protect them.
The GOP is twice screwed by Bush, first by authoring the GOP defeat, second by then using the Dems he helped elect to concoct amnesty plans to cement the Dem majority in perpetuity.
Sorry to say this, but President Bush is the reason.
He's good about security when it deals with oil. Or terrorism.
He's not so good about perspective, when things involve Mexico. In fact, just about everything George Bush believes about with regard to Mexico, seems to be exactly the opposite of the positions he should be adhering to, in order to support his base.
(frustrated beyond words)
You insist on getting everything backwards...
...one last time for the 54th time:
If you are really his base,
then you should support him.
It is that simple.
In that exit polling, the importance of corruption was not asked. They did ask about Iraq, terrorism, economy, and immigration.
These results are listed by state and I have never compiled the results for a national number. For one state, AZ, if we total up extremely important and very important the results are as follows:
Economy- 80%
Terrorism- 75%
Immigration- 71%
Iraq- 65%
Texas
Economy- 83%
Terrorism- 76%
Iraq- 68%
Immigration- 67%
WHAT? Real people...? To say (anything I disagree with) is dishonest...?
Poor as it is, this sounds like just enough to cow 'moderates' into silence;
as it is intended to do.
Republicans lost this election because from top to bottom they let the dems frame issues, create scandals, beat on otherwise dead horses, and define Iraq to fit their 'sixties fixation. Then the Pubby party withheld support to conservative members, mimiced a bunch of PC platitudes, and still asked me for money to sustain their nonactivity.
Sadly, the result has been framed as a mandate to start their 2008 programs today and the majority of Republicans in congress, and the White House, will likely tuck tails and follow along.
Sounds like an awful commercial. If you show it during the general election, you have to face the fact that most of your audience probably isn't "conservative Republicans," and will tune you out from the beginning.
But beyond that, a candidate represents a package of different positions. Single out one and you lose most of your audience. Play that one issue up too much and you turn people off, even if they're originally sympathetic to your stand.
The general message is "So-and-so cares. Cares about the things you care about. Cares about you and about how hard you work. Cares about this. Cares about that. And even about the other thing." Putting all your eggs in one basket is usually a mistake.
You fail to honestly face reality.
The conservative Republican base is split right down the middle on immigration. My side does not have a majority of conservatives. Nor does your side have a majority of conservatives. What is Bush to do?
The following Republicans are more pro than anti
- Free market capitalits like me
- libertarians
- Abolitionists who see a parallel between "illegal" and Dred-Scott
- Compassionate conservatives like Dubya and my GOP township committteeman St Rep Froehlich, IL.
- Mercantilists who oppose capitalism, but find it convenient that capitalism is good for business in this case (as if it weren't always good for business).
- Businesses, employeess, customers who benefit from immigration. If illegals didn't work beside me in IT, they would be in India and my project would be shipped to India, leaving me unemployed. If illegals didn't clean my office at night, I might have to stay late and do it myself.
- Those with personal entanglements. They have family, friends at church, neighbors, who are illegal. This is a surprisingly large group in the religious right.
- Suburban moms (PTA moms) who want to be "nice" and are afraid of being called "racist".
- Karl Rove wannabes who see a large demographic group who are conservative on 10 of 12 issues, but who vote primarily on who appears freindly or unfriendly.
thanks for that link with stats by hawkins. the pro amnesty people here cannot be convinced though, and i even heard my senator martinez right after the election say the GOP lost being too tough on illegals. sigh.
I don't know these candidates, but if you plug in "slavery" or "abortion" or "what's happening overseas" for "immigration" someone could have made the same statement at various points in our history. And they'd have been wrong.
I'm not saying that immigration is on par with those other issues. But it's not dishonest for a candidate to be more interested in an issue than the average person in the street is and to present it as a matter that the country should care about.
You insist on getting everything backwards...
...one last time for the 54th time:
If you are really his base,
then you should support him.
It is that simple.
-
I said base. Not servants.
I support who I BELIEVE IN. When my leader acts in ways I do not believe are good for America, I speak up.
I am not a "good German". Don't ask me to be one.
Even for George Bush.
BUILD THE FENCE. Stop the flood of illegals. Free the Border Patrol agents. Then let's all get together by the campfire and sing Kumbaya.
Until then, feh to your requests for unconditional loyalty.
Disingenuous. The conservative vote was split in the primaries and the RINO won by default. All we heard from the FRINOs is that we need someone who is electable except that she didn't get elected. That's what happens when the GOP ignores the conservatives and does business as usual.
The American people are 70+% on our side about securing the borders, but even Reason insists on conflating all immigration together -- olegal and illegal. They refuse to see teh difference between the guy who filled out the papers, waited, got a card, and came eagerly to America and the guy who sneaked in.
When posting Reason articles, you might want to also post a link to their blog where you can leave comments letting them know what you think. In this case:
reason.com/blog/show/118330.html
You know, if Pee-Wee Herman ran for president on an anti-illegal immigration platform, I'd vote for him.
"If you are really his base,
then you should support him.
It is that simple."
You have the positions and roles reversed.
They can't see because they have their heads buried in the sand. Another good swift kick in the butt might do the trick though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.