Who says George W. Bush has done "nothing" for conservatives?

WhiteHouse.gov; various news sources ^ | 1/27/04

[Ophiucus]

If you don't think that orders are coming from top, then you haven't gotten out of bed lately.

If you think that mush overriding influence is coming from top, your tin foil hat is slipping.

[jim35]

True enough, don't know, or care, about prop 187. I know I have a son and other family members in the military and I want a president that supports our military like GW does....

[FirstPrinciple]

You better believe influence is coming from the top. The White House/Dick Cheney picked sides early on and it was relayed down to the state party level. I very much doubt if the state party would go against the wishes of the upper echelons in the party. Anyone who has worked in any campaign will tell you that organization is everything. The White House and the party threw their influence behind Specter a long time ago. RINOs take care of each other.

[BOBTHENAILER]

Great letter, thanks for the post and flag. Been sporadic on the net lately, and likely to stay that way, but keep flagging and I'll try and catch up.

This thread has been added to my favorites..it is THAT GOOD.

Thanks Southack and Wolfstar....job well done.

[Ophiucus]

Anyone who has worked in any campaign will tell you that organization is everything. The White House and the party threw their influence behind Specter a long time ago. RINOs take care of each other.

Having worked in many Congressional campaigns and having family in the county and state Republican organization, I can tell you without reservation, "Bull."

The local organization selects the candidate and helps the candidate campaign by giving them access to resources. The national organization allows access to resources for voter lists and donors and will give specific help only when asked or if it's a tight race with a Democrat in an important district. That's when you can get the President or Vice-President to pay attention - a swing district up for grabs. That was how we got Pres. G.H.W. Bush to come to a rally and give support to knock out a weak Democrat incumbent, the candidate didn't matter - the result in the Congressional tally did.

Local internecine fights are not in the purview of the national organization, they could care less. They didn't get involved during our last nasty fight for the Governor nomination and they didn't do didley in the last Senate race I worked in. That's for the locals to decide.

Just because the local Republican organizers support Spector doesn't mean it fit's into your "RINO conspiracy."

[Bikers4Bush]

I disagree.

[templar]

Wiretaps are wiretaps.... once we've agreed that they are a valid tool of the government, we only have the conditions of their use to debate.

This is exactly the situation the fourth ammendment was intended to address. Read it lately? It places limits on government surveilance, and it does so for a reason.

For governments to perform their essential duty they need to perform surveillance on the bad guys.

This is in dispute? But what constitutes a 'bad guy'? A rather ill defined term you are using here. I would suppose that you think of yourself as being a 'bad guy' are since your financial activities, for example, are being surveiled. Why else would the government have your activities under surveilance unless at you are one of the 'bad guys'? As for me, I am not among the 'bad guys' and find it quite objectionable that everything from my banking transactions to my travel is under constant government surveilance. This is antithetical to both freedom and liberty. If you cannot understand this, then we have nothing in comon.

[FirstPrinciple]

What you are talking about is the general election, and of course the party machinery will support the candidate of the party. What I am talking about is the primary, where the national party should keep its hands off local primaries. The fact that the national party and the White House chose to take sides within the party, reflects who they would prefer in that race.

[ohioWfan]

OK......you're getting on a thread about conservatism and advocating legalizing harmful, mind altering, life destroying drugs. How bizarre is that??

I'll repeat it, for the record.

Anyone who uses illegal drugs, or advocates legalizing life destroying drugs, has NO moral authority to complain about the illegality of immigrants.

How cute of you to say they are illegal by 'fiat only.' What a convenient way for you to get out of obeying laws you don't like.

NO moral authority.......and NOT conservative. You lose.

[George W. Bush]

Letter from a Kerry supporter

Uh-oh. Going to be hard for the GOP to pick up this guy's vote!

[MeekOneGOP]

haha ! I love that letter, Grampa ! A Freeper classic now ! ...

[FirstPrinciple]

Just because you scream, it doesn't make your point any more valid. What drug isn't mind altering? Is morphine mind-altering? Alcohol? Did you know that heroine was legal for the longest time? There is no good reason to ban drugs, just like in the case of prohibition. If you choose to support banning drugs, you side with terrorists who makes profit out of keeping drugs illegal. The choice is yours.

[Sabertooth]

I say he must have a damn good reason to be taking such a great political risk. I've given this a great deal of thought and it seems to me as if Bush's primary reason for taking such a gamble even despite the loud screams of protest is because he honestly feels it is important for national security. He has been fighting like crazy to have terrorist cells identified WITHIN our country and to keep the rest of Al Quaeda OUT. That will be more feasible if the amount that are unregistered here is cut down significantly and if the numbers trying to sneak in illegally are cut down also.

There's a problem with this theory:

For the first time since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, American and Mexican Cabinet officials will meet today in Washington to resume talks on one of the most critical issues facing U.S.-Mexico relations: immigration reform.

Few believe that the new round of talks will approach the scope or enthusiasm of the dialogue that began with Mexican President Vicente Fox and President George W. Bush just days before terrorists hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

< -snip- >

In his talks with Fox before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Bush made clear his support for the creation of a guest-worker program while remaining opposed to blanket amnesty. That dialogue "transformed the immigration debate from how do we repress it to how do we regulate it," said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum.
U.S.-Mexico immigration talks resume
Jessie Mangaliman - 11/12/03 - The San Jose Mercury News

President Bush has always wanted Amnesty, and has always said he didn't.

I can see points in the argument that his proposal is the best way to accomplish this in a cost-effective manner. If all the information he has at his fingertips leads him to believe this proposal is necessary for our country, I will look at it very carefully and I'll wait and see how details are fleshed out before I yank my support for his re-election.

I'm not trying to talk you into yanking your support for his reelection.

I support his reelection.

What I'm trying to do is convey that the risk to the President's reelection is there, though moderate at this point, as a result of the anger at his proposal to Amnesty Illegal Aliens. The danger is higher to Republicans downticket if the President is reelected with lower than desired turnout. That affects every other aspect of the GOP agenda: judges; taxes, the WoT, abortion, etc.

All of this is being put at risk for the sake of the President's desire to reward the behavior of lawbreakers, againt the desires of most Americans and most Republicans.

On this issue, the President is the problem.

[Sabertooth]

...who would Osama want conservatives to vote for in 2004, GOP or third-party?

Third party.

Here's another question:

Would Osama want lax or diligent enforcement of our immigration laws?

Here's another:

Would Osama want Amnesty for Illegals and an open-ended "guest worker" scheme?

[ohioWfan]

Scream?? LOL!

Just because you've convinced yourself that wrong is right doesn't make it valid.

Buying drugs supports criminals and terrorists, and kills and destroys the lives of children and adults.

btw, you've been saying nonsensical things since you got on this thread yesterday and started with you "Who's talking point is this" silliness. I'm not getting sucked in to wasting my time, and giving you an opportunity to further your idiocy.

Read that enormous list of conservative accomplishments, and see the big picture (but then again, you're probably a libertarian, and therefore not a conservative to start with).

If you don't like government, find an island to live on where you make all the rules, and be happy.

[Joe Hadenuf]

As I said, California has had this 'problem' decades before Bush 1st was president and you know it!

You think?

Just like Bush's Dad, he too did nothing about this epic crisis.

Or maybe you are young and were sheltered by your mommy and daddy during these last three decades?

Oh crips, now your going to start the personal attacks on Joe? Feel fortunate, the AM keeps a short leash on me. Please, no more personal attacks. I would hate to ring your bell in front of others.

As I said this was a problem in the 70's, don't tell me it didn't exist, I know better.

Oh that's right, you were the guy that spent 3 years in Cal in the early 70s and thought we were over run with illegals then. LOL!

I appreciate the belly laugh.

[FirstPrinciple]

If you don't like government

Says it all. BTW, you are supporting the terrorists by keeping drugs illegal. I want to legalize drugs and drive the terrorists out of business.

[autoresponder]

Not criminal?

Tell it to the judge.

Rockefeller laws in NY!

Bye Bye!

[Sabertooth]

Maybe then I could get something besides a cold, stale burger practically thrown in my face by some resentful white trash who's mad at the world for whatever reason, or some surly black who's sure I'm Scarlett O'Hara there to oppress them and keep them poor and waiting on lil' ole me.

Wow.

Sounds like someone got up on the wrong side of the bed of racial animus.

rdb3, next time I want to be the surly one.

Regards,

Sabertrash (Surlytooth)