Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Missouri
Starting in 1992 till today its voted for a democrat.

What the connection to Bush?

What is the common denominator? Increased immigration both legal and illegal which started about 1990.

Your ignoring 1890 and 1790 and all the years in between. You can't do that. And, what's the connection to Bush?

I don't see GWB carrying either one of these states come Nov.

More faithless posturing by those who think Bush may lose. You seem to be blaming Bush because California and other states vote for Democrats. Maybe Democrats are winning the close elections because "conservative" losers are not voting GOP but are fragmenting the conservative vote across a bunch of loser Third Parties, thereby abandoning the GOP for something even less effective. Yes? No?

I will say that California (and Illinois) are less conservative. A blind man can see this.

What does that have to do with Bush? Some conservatives and a lot of disruptors are effectively using this issue against both the GOP and Conservatives....a Liberal dream scenario.

250 posted on 07/03/2004 8:01:40 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies ]


To: Consort
You seem to be blaming Bush because California and other states vote for Democrats.

I never blamed Bush for anything.

Link to F.A.I.R. article

Now here is a snippet from this article

Clinton embarked on a program to reshape the electorate in a way that was more to his liking. In addition to using his considerable powers of persuasion to win back public support, he set about creating a new American public. The administration directed the Immigration and Naturalization Service to mint new citizens in time to vote in the 1996 elections. Under the direct control of Vice President Gore, the Citizenship USA program was tasked with naturalizing as many noncitizens as they could possibly find in time to participate in the next election.

End of snippet

Despite the manipulating of the electorate by the democrats, GWB did a job to get himself elected in 2000. I voted for him then and I don't plan on voting against him in 2004.

I don't see GWB carrying either one of these states come Nov.

More faithless posturing by those who think Bush may lose.

I never said he'd lose, I said he'd probably won't carry California or Illinois. He won last time without those states. He'd be better off trying to take a state like Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin, or New Mexico. I'm just being realistic.

The bottom line is that GWB's legalized status program is so much better than Kerry's Amnesty proposal. Before any program is implemented, illegals need to be stopped cold in their tracks at the border. Otherwise, we'll never solve this problem.

Some conservatives and a lot of disruptors are effectively using this issue against both the GOP and Conservatives...

I see it differently. Debate on the Free Republic sharpens up our debating skills for the democrats when we run into them at work or out in the street.

274 posted on 07/03/2004 3:27:46 PM PDT by Missouri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson