Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38

Thread: Some Key Conservatives Uneasy About Bush

  1. #1
    All League
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    4,255
    Post Thanks / Like
    [b]I'm joining the cut-and-paste crowd.[/b]

    Some Key Conservatives Uneasy About Bush

    By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON - When an influential group of conservatives gathers in downtown Washington each week, they often get a political pep talk from a senior Bush administration official or campaign aide. They don't expect a fellow Republican to deliver a blistering critique of President Bush (news - web sites)'s handling of the Iraq (news - web sites) war.

    But nearly 150 conservatives listened in silence recently as a veteran of the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations ticked off a litany of missteps in Iraq by the Bush White House.

    "This war is not going well," said Stefan Halper, a deputy assistant secretary of state under President Reagan.

    "It's costing us a lot of money, isolating us from our allies and friends," said Halper, who gave $1,000 to George W. Bush's campaign and more than $83,000 to other GOP causes in 2000. "This is not the cakewalk the neoconservatives predicted. We were not greeted with flowers in the streets."

    Conservatives, the backbone of Bush's political base, are increasingly uneasy about the Iraq conflict and the steady drumbeat of violence in postwar Iraq, Halper and some of his fellow Republicans say. The conservatives' anxiety was fueled by the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal and has not abated with the transfer of political power to the interim Iraqi government.

    Some Republicans fear Angry conservatives will stay home in November, undercutting Bush's re-election bid.

    "I don't think there's any question that there is growing restiveness in the Republican base about this war," said Halper, the co-author of a new book, "America Alone: The Neoconservatives and the Global Order."

    Some Republicans dismiss the rift as little more than an inside-the-Beltway spat among rival factions of the GOP intelligentsia. Indeed, conservatives nationwide are still firmly behind Bush. A Pew Research Center poll last month found that 97 percent of conservative Republicans favored Bush over Kerry.

    But anger is simmering among some conservatives.

    "I am bitterly disappointed in his actions with this war. It is a total travesty," said Tom Hutchinson, 69, a self-described conservative from Sturgeon, Mo., who posted yard signs and staffed campaign phone banks for the Republican in 2000. Hutchinson said he did not believe the administration's stated rationales for the war, in particular the argument that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had weapons of mass destruction.

    Hutchinson, a retired businessman and former college professor, said his unease with Iraq may lead him to do something he has not done since 1956: avoid the voting booth in a presidential election.

    Jack Walters, 59, a self-described "classical conservative" from Columbia, Mo., said he hadn't decided which candidate to vote for.

    "Having been through Vietnam, I thought no, never again," Walters said. "But here comes the same thing again, and I'm old enough to recognize the lame reasons given for going into Iraq, and they made me ill."

    The tension has been building in official Washington, where conservative members of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees have pressed the administration for answers on combat operations; disagreed with the Pentagon (news - web sites) on troop levels; and expressed frustration with an administration they feel has shown them disdain by withholding information.

    Chief political adviser Karl Rove's formula for re-election is primarily to push Bush's conservative base to the polls.

    Another administration official involved in Bush's re-election effort has voiced concern that Angry conservatives will sit out the election.

    But Matthew Dowd, the Bush-Cheney campaign's chief strategist, described the fear of losing conservative support as "just ludicrous."

    Bush is "as strong among conservative Republicans as any Republican president has been" — higher than President Reagan's approval among conservatives during his re-election campaign of 1984, Dowd said.

    Yet, Halper said his critical review on the administration's performance on Iraq last week was met with expressions of support in the conservatives' weekly meeting, which is closed to journalists.

    The marquee speaker sent by the administration was Eric Ciliberti, who spent several weeks in Iraq this year and told the audience of broad progress being made there.

    Ciliberti complained to the group that those in the news media were not reporting the positive developments out of Iraq. Ciliberti did not return several calls late in the past week from a reporter seeking his account.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    10,485
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Bob the Jets Fan™[/i]@Jul 11 2004, 10:55 PM
    [b] [b]I'm joining the cut-and-paste crowd.[/b]

    [/b][/quote]
    Bob,

    Very nice job and copy and paste. One of the best quality paste jobs I've seen. ;)

  3. #3
    All League
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    4,255
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks, J. I've been watching and learning from some of the best! :lol:

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bob - a lot of "true" conservatives are VERY upset with Bush, and I consider myself one fo them. (Although, it is tough to know what "conservative" and "liberal" actually mean these days....)

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Libs are so overjoyed with kerry that he got such a huge bump in the polls by choosing pretty-boy, ambulance-chaser. That bump really woke this conservative up.

    But that article is partially right, I'm so upset with Bush, I plan on pulling the lever for him with my left hand.

    Curious -- I didn't see any negative quotes from that noted "self described" conservative, barney frank.

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,112
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Jul 12 2004, 09:05 AM
    [b] Bob - a lot of "true" conservatives are VERY upset with Bush, and I consider myself one fo them. (Although, it is tough to know what "conservative" and "liberal" actually mean these days....) [/b][/quote]
    not sure what it means either 5ever but I would consider you a very honest & fair minded consertative.

    bob, good job. while I am not anti bush & honestly wish this Iraq effort was going well since the decision to invade, Its good to see that people from his own party aren't blindly following as yes men, and aren't afraid to speak out fairly

  7. #7
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Jul 12 2004, 10:38 AM
    [b] Libs are so overjoyed with kerry that he got such a huge bump in the polls by choosing pretty-boy, ambulance-chaser. That bump really woke this conservative up.

    But that article is partially right, I'm so upset with Bush, I plan on pulling the lever for him with my left hand.

    Curious -- I didn't see any negative quotes from that noted "self described" conservative, barney frank. [/b][/quote]
    Not so fast my friend:

    [b]Edwards Makes Little Difference in Polls [/b]

    By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON - The exuberant cross-country campaign dash by Democrats John Kerry (news - web sites) and John Edwards (news - web sites) in recent days may have suggested they were riding a "bounce" in the polls after Edwards was chosen for the vice presidential slot. But actually, very little has changed in the very close race between Kerry and President Bush (news - web sites).

    Kerry strategists are trying to lower expectations for a quick gain in the polls that presidential candidates sometimes get after choosing a running mate or being nominated at their party's convention. Bush campaign aides were quick to raise expectations of a double-digit bounce for the Kerry-Edwards team by the end of the Democratic National Convention late this month.

    Tad Devine, a Kerry strategist, discounted Republican predictions of a jump of 12 to 15 percentage points for the Massachusetts senator.

    "We've gotten the bounce already that we're going to get," he said. "If you look at the Democratic vote, it has already consolidated behind John Kerry."

    Devine and Bush strategist Matthew Dowd both told "Fox News Sunday" they have detected slight gains for Kerry in national and some state polls.

    Kerry has "gotten a slight uptick, whether it's temporary or not," Dowd said.

    "You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see a number of things," Kerry said Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes." "One is that we like each other. Two is that we're having a great time on the campaign trail. And three is that we're good for each other."

    But those looking for a Kerry surge in the polls after he chose Edwards on Tuesday saw a shift of a few points, often within a poll's margin of error.

    An Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Thursday offered an early hint there would not be a post-Edwards bounce for Kerry.

    Bush had a slight lead over Kerry as voters expressed increasing confidence about the economy, according to that poll. Bush was at 49 percent, Kerry at 45 percent and independent Ralph Nader (news - web sites) at 3 percent.


    Other polls in the next few days showed Bush and Kerry essentially tied in a three-way contest. Kerry had a slight edge in a two-way race with Bush in some polls.


    As the deadlocked polls became public, Kerry campaign pollster Mark Mellman issued a campaign memo Friday cautioning he does not expect a bounce in the polls from either the Edwards choice or the convention.


    Even though the race remains close, weekend polls found encouraging news for Edwards.


    Nearly half, 47 percent, said in a Time-CNN poll that Edwards would make a better president than the current vice president, Dick Cheney (news - web sites), while 38 percent said Cheney would be better.


    When people were asked in a Newsweek poll who they would pick if they could vote separately for vice president, they chose Edwards by 52 percent to 41 percent for Cheney.


    Kerry's announcement Tuesday that Edwards, a North Carolina senator, was his choice as running mate was followed by a tour of several states by the candidates and their families.


    The Democratic campaign is releasing an ad this week in North Carolina, swing states and on national cable channels that shows Edwards, in a speech after his selection, praising Kerry's leadership skills.

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]Its good to see that people from his own party aren't blindly following as yes men, and aren't afraid to speak out fairly[/b][/quote]
    JW, the Republican Party officially shot itself in the head in 1986 and 1996.

    In 1986, they followed disgracful California Republican Dan Lundgren and allowed an illegal alien amnesty for about 5 million lawbreakers. Within 10 years, that added several million "hardcore Democrat's" to the states voting roll.

    Turdface Lundgren, now disgraced and working as a lawyer, thought "pandering" to criminals and big biz. farmers would solidify the Republican party for years; the opposite happened--[b]the stupid animal and his Repub' cronies destroyed the party in California and bankrupted the state.[/b] Angry

    In the 1970's and 1980's it was simply absurd to think the Republican party could become almost obsolete in California, which was a bastion of "Republicanism"......But it happened. Now idiot neo-cons that supported Lundgren and his "ilk" are paying taxes through their a*ses and living in a crime infested, liberal state.

    In 1996, folks concerned with the border had liberal Bill Clinton on the ropes with the issue. With the help of a strong group of Democrats concerned about wages for the poor, sweeping reform was all set to go through. However, the neo-con right led by Chuck Hagel, Larry Craig and other "cheap labor lusters" destroyed the reform.

    Basically, the Repub's have allowed the Democrats to "import" millions and millions of voters out west........It's just insane to think that states like Arizona, Nevada and Colorado would tilt Democrat these days. Not too long ago, high ranking Democrats in those states were about as common as a 5 legged dog :wacko:

    In the fall of 2000, all the polls had Bush ahead by a mile. On election night, I was horrified to see the media declared Al Snore as the winner by about 9:50pm.........Somehow, Bush pulled it off, but with a newly imported army of peasants, expect the Democrats to win easily if states like Colorado, Nevada, Florida and Arizona go their way.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,649
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Riggins44[/i]@Jul 12 2004, 11:30 AM
    [b] [quote][b]Its good to see that people from his own party aren't blindly following as yes men, and aren't afraid to speak out fairly[/b][/quote]
    JW, the Republican Party officially fell shot itself in the head in 1986 and 1996.

    In 1986, they followed disgracful California Republican Dan Lundgren and allowed an illegal alien amnesty for about 5 million lawbreakers. Within 10 years, that added several million "hardcore Democrat's" to the states voting roll.

    Turdface Lundgren, now disgraced and working as a lawyer, thought "pandering" to criminals and big biz. farmers would solidify the Republican party for years; the opposite happened--[b]the stupid animal and his Repub' cronies destroyed the party in California and bankrupted the state.[/b] Angry

    In the 1970's and 1980's it was simply absurd to think the Republican party could become almost obsolete in California, which was a bastion of "Republicanism"......But it happened. Now idiot neo-cons that supported Lundgren and his "ilk" are paying taxes through their a*ses and living in a crime infested, liberal state.

    In 1996, folks concerned with the border had liberal Bill Clinton on the ropes with the issue. With the help of a strong group of Democrats concerned about wages for the poor, sweeping reform was all set to go through. However, the neo-con right led by Chuck Hagel, Larry Craig and other "cheap labor lusters" destroyed the reform.

    Basically, the Repub's have allowed the Democrats to "import" millions and millions of voters out west........It's just insane to think that states like Arizona, Nevada and Colorado would tilt Democrat these days. Not too long ago, high ranking Democrats in those states were about as common as a 5 legged dog :wacko:

    In the fall of 2000, all the polls had Bush ahead by a mile. On election night, I was horrified to see the media declared Al Snore as the winner by about 9:50pm.........Somehow, Bush pulled it off, but with a newly imported army of peasants, expect the Democrats to win easily if states like Colorado, Nevada, Florida and Arizona go their way. [/b][/quote]
    For a person who is so interested in illegal immigartion you are grossly uninformed. First of all John Kerry has proposed an immediate amnesty and citizenship for all illegals currently in this country. The only stipulation was that they learn some english. The bush plan calls for guest worker permits. After 5 years the guest worker must return home to their country of origin and apply for legalized status. Its alot more stringent requirements than just learning English. The problem is that there are 10 million illegals in this country and no one is willing ot round them up and deport them. That is a shame. Still Bush's plan is very much the lesser of two evils.

    Oh by the way

    [url=http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/author.asp?vm_id=69&aut_id=582]Linda Chavez[/url]

    This woman has some great ideas on immigration as well as a myriad of other subjects. She is my choice for the first Mexican Female VP.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,112
    Post Thanks / Like
    Riggo, without any question in my mind, you are the resident expert on border control issues. I have learned much about this topic from your posts

  11. #11
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]Still Bush's plan is very much the lesser of two evils.[/b][/quote]
    Remember this: When you vote for the lesser of 2 evils, you still get [b]evil[/b] :blink:

    [quote][b]The problem is that there are 10 million illegals in this country and no one is willing ot round them up and deport them.[/b][/quote]

    The problem is corporate America is pulling the strings here, and the lap dog Republicans and Democrats are following their "America last" example: If outsourcing, NAFTA and illegal aliens were not enough, new Minnesota senator Norm Coleman ® wants more peasant "visa holders" to enter the U.S to help [b]Marvin Windows[/b] drive down wages :wacko:

    Also, we wouldn't have to deport anyone. Start arresting the people that employ them vigoursly and the problem is solved..Those that lust cheap labor (i.e The CATO Institute) will see their country morph into something similar to Brazil in time (So. California is already there)....I hope them and their kids will enjoy it or invest in bullet-proof vests :rolleyes:

    [quote][b]Riggo, without any question in my mind, you are the resident expert on border control issues. I have learned much about this topic from your posts[/b][/quote]
    Thank you Joe Willy. I'm glad people like you, Piper, Shakin and even my friend Maxman are considering this to be an issue worth strong consideration.

    People can't buy into the media lie that this is largely a "secondary issue". It's not.

    [b]I mean, how else can someone explain how California went from the "fort of Republicanism", to a den of rabid liberals so quickly?[/b]

    For 20 years, up to 1988, California Republicans basically OWNED the White House. Up until a few years back, the Republican Party OWNED California!!

    When Repub's held California, it was tantamount to begining an NFL game with a 28-0 lead..........Now, through idoicy of cheap labor lusters, they are behind 28-0 every election.

    When "Bomber" Bob Dornan lost his seat to Lorretta Sanchez (with tons of voter fraud) in the middle of conservative Orange County, the Republican Party officially ended in California <_<

    Sad reality is that Arizona, Nevada and Colorado are now following in the same path.

    The Republican Party, through extreme corporate greed, shot itself in the head and wont recover.

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Riggins44[/i]@Jul 12 2004, 12:30 PM
    [b] Remember this: When you vote for the lesser of 2 evils, you still get [b]evil[/b] :blink:

    Thank you Joe Willy. I&#39;m glad people like you, Piper, Shakin and even my friend Maxman are considering this to be an issue worth strong consideration.

    People can&#39;t buy into the media lie that this is largely a "secondary issue". It&#39;s not.

    [b]I mean, how else can someone explain how California went from the "fort of Republicanism", to a den of rabid liberals so quickly?[/b]

    For 20 years, up to 1988, California Republicans basically OWNED the White House. Up until a few years back, the Republican Party OWNED California&#33;&#33;

    When Repub&#39;s held California, it was tantamount to begining an NFL game with a 28-0 lead..........Now, through idoicy of cheap labor lusters, they are behind 28-0 every election.

    When "Bomber" Bob Dornan lost his seat to Lorretta Sanchez (with tons of voter fraud) in the middle of conservative Orange County, the Republican Party officially ended in California <_<

    Sad reality is that Arizona, Nevada and Colorado are now following in the same path.

    The Republican Party, through extreme corporate greed, shot itself in the head and wont recover. [/b][/quote]
    No one said it&#39;s not worth strong consideration.

    However, you offer the following as a solution:

    1) Vote for kerry as an FU to the GOP (actually an FU to America) or
    2) Sit this one out as a protest.

    Despite their feeling of the Bush record on illegal immigration, ask Piper, Shakin or Maxman if 1 or 2 is an option for them.

    Maybe when you vote for the lesser of 2 evils, you still get evil, but when you vote for the greater of 2 evils, you still get evil AND you are a fool.

    I just hope you&#39;re willing to accept learning spanish if your solution is implemented.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    I&#39;m voting for Bush. Having said that, Riggo can&#39;t be rebutted on his points. This indifference to illegal immigration, whether it be catering to huge agricultural interests or fear of being called racist, is disgraceful.

    And as Riggo and I have both noted, those entry level jobs-farm work, construction trades, fast food-were done by teenagers and the working poor. It didn&#39;t go undone. All this has done is lowered the wage scale at the entry level and fostered an lawless attitude that flouts sensible policy. If you ignore this law, what else will you also ignore, or what can you enforce? Of course, the wage scale may have been a dollar or 2 more an hour, and you teenager learned how to do something other than watch rap videos all day in order to immitate Tupac Shakur&#39;s syntax and wear sideways caps and ugly oversized clothes. For cheap salad lettuce, we&#39;ve given up the chance for young people to learn how to behave in the job place. You know the simple things-showing up on time, following orders, working with the public, managing your money. Great tradeoff-NOT&#33;

    In every poll done in the Southwest and California strict enforcement of immigration laws is a big winner. If Bush and Republicans keep up this "diversity circus" excuse to avoid enforcing the law, it will cost them.

  14. #14
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]I just hope you&#39;re willing to accept learning spanish if your solution is implemented.[/b][/quote]

    :wacko: [url=http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-bush-hispanics,0,267289,print.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines]http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/...itics-headlines[/url]


    Weeb go ahead and delude yourself here. There is no reason to believe, given what we&#39;ve seen from Bush (dating back to his Tex gov&#39; days) that he&#39;s any better than Kerry. When almost 70 percent of Californian&#39;s passed prop 187, your hero dubbed Texas "a prop. 187 free zone".....In other words: He would condone illegal behavior.

    When he got "power of the presidency", he not only allowed illegal behavior, but he attempted to award it (proposed full amnesty in early 2001).

    Let&#39;s be honest Weeb: Back in the days of The Brady Bunch and The Partridge Family and into the early 1990&#39;s California was the U.S "model for Republicanisim".

    The liberals where on the ropes and could never win. So, what did they do? They got the foolish, chead-labor lusting Republicans to radically change the demograpics of the state (both racially and economically).

    The Repubs&#39; and their big biz. friends enjoyed the cheap-labor surfs in the short term, but people will only be exploited for so long. Now, with millions of new peasants voting Democrat and upset Republicans staying away from phonies like Bush, the party is almost gone.

    Watch Florida, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado be gone too due to this immigration issue.

    Jorge Arbusto had a chance to right the ship a bit in Utah, but he backed amnesty lusting RINO Chris Cannon in a recent primary..... :wub:

    It won&#39;t be long before Utah is run by "socialists" .

    You&#39;re gonna get bigger gov&#39;t, more poverty and higher taxes either way Weeb. Voting for Arbusto is merely condoning the Republicans self destruction.

    [quote][b]In every poll done in the Southwest and California strict enforcement of immigration laws is a big winner. If Bush and Republicans keep up this "diversity circus" excuse to avoid enforcing the law, it will cost them.[/b][/quote]
    Exactly&#33;&#33; The Republican&#39;s have already lost their "anchor state" out west.....Watch other states will follow. Men like Weeb can&#39;t refute my facts. The Republicans basically sold California for some short-term, cheap labor....Now they are going down the same road in other states :blink:

  15. #15
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,703
    Post Thanks / Like
    All politicians pander for votes......Both Republicans and Democrats will now actively pander and make promices to the illegal Hispanic contingency because once legal, the thought is they will be loyal to whichever party sets them "Free".

    When it comes to immigration issues, there is no lesser of two evils. There is just two equally wrong evils.

    On the other issues though, Bush still wins out over Mr Kerry IMO, of the two Major Party options.

  16. #16
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    Here&#39;s the bottom line: The Republican&#39;s, like total idiots, handed the liberal Democrats their most valued possesion--California--in exchange for short term cheap labor :wacko:

    Now, with Florida trending the same way for the same reasons, and New York always being liberal, can the Repulicans really compete?

    When you start the game knowing California and New York are totally lost, you&#39;re scared.....Add Florida&#39;s electoral votes to the list, and they are almost sunk before the game starts :o

    Now, we now most Americans over the age of 27, or so, are fairly conservative. With that, Bush has a slight chance to still win now, albeit barely. His cadre of turds like Dowd and Rove must hope that middle America sees Kerry and his VP for what they are--wild-eyed liberals.

    But suppose Bush does win, will it really matter beyond this election?

    By continuing to pander to the Democrats (which he will do) , the same "foot-soldiers" that transformed California from a staunch Republican state to a very Liberal outpost will start to radically change states like North Carolina, Georgia, Colorado, Arizona and Ohio in the very near future--tilting them strongly towards the liberals.

    At that point, the Republican party will just have to wave the "white flag in surrender".

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Riggins44[/i]@Jul 12 2004, 01:58 PM
    [b] Let&#39;s be honest Weeb: Back in the days of The Brady Bunch and The Partridge Family and into the early 1990&#39;s California was the U.S "model for Republicanisim".

    The liberals where on the ropes and could never win. So, what did they do? They got the foolish, chead-labor lusting Republicans to radically change the demograpics of the state (both racially and economically).

    The Repubs&#39; and their big biz. friends enjoyed the cheap-labor surfs in the short term, but people will only be exploited for so long. Now, with millions of new peasants voting Democrat and upset Republicans staying away from phonies like Bush, the party is almost gone.

    [/b][/quote]
    Your post makes my point.

    On your pet peeve, how does dem/lib controlled CA fare when it comes to illegals? It&#39;s so bad there now, that its judicial system empowered by dems and libs, even overturn the will of the people when [u]they vote against[/u] rights for ILLEGAL aliens.

    You want the same on a national scale, then vote your conscience. Vote against the GOP for president and the real power to change immigration policy -- your reps in congress.

    When I pull the lever for GW and conservative congressmen, mine will be clear.

  18. #18
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    Weeb, your quite feisty aren&#39;t you?.....Regrettably, you are missing my point regarding California and the coward Republicans that handed the states over to the Democrats on a "silver platter".

    You see, it&#39;s folks like Bush that destoyed the party in the state, by condoning, accepting and even rewarding lawlessness. Liberal judges don&#39;t elect themselves and liberal judges never appointed scores and scores of liberal congress folks.....That was was done by Repulicans allowing Democrats to change the make up of the state.

    Let&#39;s be honest. Bush is walking in "lock step" with Kerry on this issue and is to the LEFT of Al Sharpton here :o

    So much for Bush being a "conservative" [url=http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/]http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/[/url]


    On a lighter note: Weeb, do think Jeb Bush will allow the U.S to deport the "Pee Wee Herman" of illegal aliens?...I say he&#39;ll work on GW&#39;s campaign soon :lol: [url=http://www.local6.com/news/3519774/detail.html]http://www.local6.com/news/3519774/detail.html[/url]

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Riggins44[/i]@Jul 12 2004, 03:56 PM
    [b] Let&#39;s be honest. Bush is walking in "lock step" with Kerry on this issue and is to the LEFT of Al Sharpton here :o
    [/b][/quote]
    I hope you are joking. GW may be to the left of you and I on immigration, but if you think GW is to the left of any mainstream dem on this subject, you&#39;re off your rocker.

    Are you saying that if sharpton won the primary, you would vote for him over Bush?

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,649
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb+Jul 12 2004, 04:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Spirit of Weeb @ Jul 12 2004, 04:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Riggins44[/i]@Jul 12 2004, 03:56 PM
    [b] Let&#39;s be honest. Bush is walking in "lock step" with Kerry on this issue and is to the LEFT of Al Sharpton here :o
    [/b][/quote]
    I hope you are joking. GW may be to the left of you and I on immigration, but if you think GW is to the left of any mainstream dem on this subject, you&#39;re off your rocker.

    Are you saying that if sharpton won the primary, you would vote for him over Bush? [/b][/quote]
    Dont take that nonesense seroiusly. Left of Al Sharpton is an Oxy-Moron. The immigrant thing is a problem but its not the biggest issue facing this country. Eventually they assimilate. I agree more action should be taken but lets not make such a big deal out of it. The Bush plan while overly lax, is definately stricter than the Kerry plan.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us