Conservatives can't elect national candidates without attracting a sizable percentage of the moderates, and lately conservative rhetoric has been off-putting in the extreme to fence-sitters.
"Conservatives can't elect national candidates without attracting a sizable percentage of the moderates, and lately conservative rhetoric has been off-putting in the extreme to fence-sitters."
==
The voice of reason.
Some so-called conservatives are actually advocating helping the Dems win -- now how conservatives is that?!
Bush doesn't appear to be attracting too many moderates, as evidenced by his abysmal approval ratings.
In the third Bush-Kerry debate, with the election on the line, Bush's stance on immigration was much harder than now. He wasn't saying anything about "adjustment of status", it was Kerry.
Bush and the RINO Senators are not trying to attract any moderate voters. They are carrying water for cheap labor business interests.
"Conservative rhetoric has been off-putting in the extreme to fence-sitters (i.e, moderates)."
Really? So Senator Dick "Marines murdered innocent Iraqis" Durbin is closer to the moderates point of view?
Wishful liberal thinking.
Spoken like a true "fence-sitting" moderate.
Can't vouch for Malkin and Colter but I have been listening to Laura Ingraham every day, you are either dead wrong or listening to her with extreme prejudice and hearing something else, because she NEVER took an extreme position of "kick em all out" in fact she is more concerned about border security which is a separate but related issue to law enforcement.
As for the fence sitters, they usually are tuned into sports or music in the morning and study the issues the night before an election anyway,
So I see your points spiraling into the ground in flames at this moment...lol
Nope--you constructed a straw dog with your labeling Michele, Ann and Laura the "kick-them-all-out conservatives." What THEY want, what I want and, to the best of my understanding, what most FREEPERS want are SECURE BORDERS (heck, I think most AMERICANS want the same). You cease being a country if you have no enforced borders.
Bush has been asleep at the switch on this one for a LOOOONG time, so please, have another cerveza and go celebrate Cinco de Mayo again.
"Truth to tell, the likes of Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter and the kick-them-all-out conservatives sound every bit as nutty as Randi Rhodes and the impeach-Bush liberals."
cite please?
http://michellemalkin.com/immigration/
and maybe you should Rush to that list ...
"Folks, I know, it's getting worse by the day, and it's inexplicable. It doesn't make any sense. What are these 18 Republicans doing? What is so difficult to understand about this in terms of the smart, sensible thing to do here? The first thing is the security of the border, and to have 18 Republicans, "Oh, nope, can't put that in there." Maybe they didn't like the fact that we can't do anything else until the border is secure. Well, what is wrong with that?" - Rush Limbaugh
AND SENATOR SESSIONS AND SENATOR CORNYN!
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2006/05/20/required-week-end-reading-sessions-reveals-senate-punting-on-immigration-bill/#more-1278
"Conservatives can't elect national candidates without attracting a sizable percentage of the moderates, and lately conservative rhetoric has been off-putting in the extreme to fence-sitters."
Nonsense, the rhetoric that is offputting is Bush's rhetoric on immigration!!! Which is lower in the polls, Bush approval or approval to build a fence? Polls shows consistently that desire for lower immigration levels and opposition to amnesty is widely supported and cuts across conservative/moderate/liberal lines.
example:
66% of moderates like the House approach:
http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/2006poll.html
"Conservatives can't elect national candidates without attracting a sizable percentage of the moderates..."
Oddly enough, Republicans can't get elected without attracting a certain amount of their conservative base...."
That axe swings both ways.