Posted on 05/17/2006 7:47:58 AM PDT by Pukin Dog
Edited on 05/17/2006 8:30:59 AM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
As a former left of center independent, who has become way more conservative than my lifelong conservative friends I can't vote the RINOs out in primaries until I complete my transformation to the good side of the force. That doesn't mean I don't know how things should be done.
The way to get our agenda through all the liberal BS is to increase the majority until it is idiot proof. So that speed bumps like Specter, Chaffee, Snow, Collins, Hagel... on and on, no longer matter. A nice 60 - 40 senate split would do it. And would send the message to the RINOs that they aren't safe when their time is up.
I don't have the name list handy, as I don't visit antifreep websites, but there is an awful lot of sideband chatter to that regard. Where is Willie Green, btw?
Excellent rant!!
There seems to be folks in different categories that are undermining.
The DU and Third Party trolls who have nothing constructive
to offer but trouble.
Also the ones who find fault with the President at every policy.
And the ones who find fault if you support the President but may not agree with a policy and are put in the all or nothing position.
We need to keep a Republican majority. I don't want StretchPelosi as Speaker.
I don't want Democrats as chairman of committies.
So...which is it? Do you or do you not care what the Drive-by media says? You're not a conservative you're a confused Bushbot...so please spare us... you whiner.
Cameron was more than 84% Latino in the 2000 census. Also, Latinos who don't live in Hispanic ghettos, tend I suspect to be more GOP.
I think the drop off is straight line, but i could be wrong. Having said that, Bush ran very well among rural Latinos in Texas.
Thanks for the reminder,We have more responsibility.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Are you seeing the black helicopters circling your house, these days? LOL
I have not even mentioned the fence. I would love a fence and I will fight for it - but I will not throw in the towel and give my vote to a democrat for anything.
I am talking about those that threaten to quit if they do not get their way. Or those that want to teach the GOP a lesson by making them lose.
People like that will just move to another issue and do the same.
They are quitters and that is their only power. They do not stand and fight - they stick the GOP in the eye on any particular point not going their way. We don't need those tactics.
We need people who are fighting the dems and the destruction of this country. And, the only ones subject to getting into office and fighting for our side are the Republicans even though many are worthless.
I don't appreciate conservatives gambling with the future of my country.
Yeah, well, as is frequently noted around here, George W. Bush will never run for election again.
Baloney.
They're Italians. Just ask Barone.
BRAVO!
One thing I will throw at you: I'm not sure I'm buying your premise about Bush 41. First off, let me say that you are correct that the tax hike caused a mass defection of the base. But I don't neccessarily agree that the reason he lost was the tax hike/defection.
I remember that year well. Clinton was a WEAK candidate. He "came back" about 3 times that year. Bush still should have won, and probably would have, even WITH the mass defections, save for 3 events:
1) Pat Buchanan uttering the words "religious war" at the convention.
2) Goofy-man entering as a 3rd party candidate on his personal vendetta against the Bushs.
3) Bush 41 looking at his watch during one of the debates.
The first drove away the soccer moms that might have given Bush the win. The second drew in not tax hawks, but deficit hawks (that was his main campaign theme), also "Reagan" union types and anti-NAFTA folks. The third gave the impression to the mushy middle that Bush didn't really want the job, so they gladly obliged. (and don't forget about the "little things" - supermarket scanner, "bozos", etc .
My premise is (and always will be) is that the election is won by winning over the mushy middle. If the base defects, you have to pull in even more of the middle, but you can still win. Bush would have STILL won (most people thought Billy-Boy was a joke) if it hadn't been for those events I listed above.
So once again, I don't buy your premise. There are many political analysts, poll analysts, etc. who post at FR. Maybe they can tell us whose premise is correct?
LOL! Dagnabbit, I was just trying to be polite.
- - -
Oh. Sorry.
I guess Shrillery and polite in the same post just fries my synapses . . .
!!!ERROR!!! DOES NOT COMPUTE !!!ERROR!!! DOES NOT COMPUTE!
This reminds me of the dysfunctional families that will defend a juvenile delinquent no matter what. A poor analogy, granted but it begs the issue.
Clinton not only acted like a dictator, but got away with it: remember the retroactive tax increases? The mass dismissal of all the federal prosecutors upon taking office? The endless stream of executive orders that are affecting us negatively to this very day?
It is perfectly legitimate and our duty to, if not demand equally creative leadership, to wonder what the explanation for the lapse might be.
Of course this does not ever require a personal attack, but the less mature among us can't help it. After all, they all don't have a dozen personal handlers to prevent them from "foot in mouth" disease, or from putting mouth in gear before engaging brain.
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.