Posted on 07/05/2004 1:06:01 PM PDT by My Favorite Headache
THE ED KOCH? Yes, I have heard his coming out for Bush dozens of times...but the following fact is disturbing:
Why is this the case then?
Koch, Edward
New York, NY 10104
Bryan Cave LLP/Attorney GEPHARDT, RICHARD A (D)
President
GEPHARDT FOR PRESIDENT INC. $1000 06/30/03
"CHARLES S (D)
Senate - VA ROBB FOR THE SENATE $1000 04/13/00 IJAZ, MANSOOR NEW YORK, NY 10017..
Robb? Virginia? Aw come on..he's been gone for years.
He's not coming back...is he? Please....
Your comment on Ed Koch is what I was about to say about Ijaz; since the donations appear to have stopped after the RATS went way over the line, maybe he is that rarest of creatures, an honest Zell Miller style Democrat.
There are a lot of folks who vote dem. out of habit,or because they feel the dems are more in sync with them.
That doesn't make them the enemy-per se-and it's often worthwhile to try to persuade them to support a reasonably conservative candidate,if they can do so privately.
Koch, Edward
New York, NY 10104
Bryan Cave LLP/Attorney GEPHARDT, RICHARD A (D)
President
GEPHARDT FOR PRESIDENT INC. $1000 06/30/03
Ijaz was a Democrat, but he voted for President Bush in 2000.
Here's an article that might answer some questions written by Ijaz
http://www.benadorassociates.com/pf.php?id=66
Shifting trends in voter loyalties
by Mansoor Ijaz
Washington Times
August 12, 2002
Americans practice the most advanced form of citizenship known to mankind. But the essential ingredient of our experiment in self-rule is maintaining transparency and truth in our public discourse so we as individual citizens are informed well enough to make the judgments that impact our collective societal good.
That is why the recent spate of self-congratulatory commentaries from 2004 Democratic presidential hopefuls is such a discouraging indicator of the health of our democracy.
I confess that as a Democrat in the Scoop Jackson mold who raised or donated almost a million dollars to various Democratic causes from 1993 until 1999, I voted for George Bush in 2000. Not because I espoused or embraced his compassionate conservatism, but because I could not support Al Gore's politically deceptive campaign in which many of the Clinton era promises to the very Americans they had helped empower — American Muslims key among them — were broken.
When I hosted Mr. Gore at my home in September 1996, he proudly celebrated ours as the new voices of the Democratic Party's big tent embrace. But his stewardship over a catastrophically arrogant 2000 presidential campaign that rewarded the very "forces of greed" he today admonishes demonstrates how out of touch he was then and how Democrats cannot afford to be led by the same mistakes today.
On Nov. 10, 2000, members of the Democratic Leadership Council came together in New York to understand how defeat had been snatched from the jaws of victory. Analysis of key exit poll data then told a compelling story, one that is worth recanting now as Democrats prepare to contest for all-important midterm elections this fall.
Middle class migration: In 1996, voters earning less than $50,000 annually formed 61 percent of the electorate and voted overwhelmingly in every income category for Clinton-Gore over Dole-Kemp. In 2000, voters earning less than $50,000 formed only 48 percent of the electorate and voted much less enthusiastically for Gore-Lieberman across the sub-$50,000 earnings spectrum. The biggest shift was in the 13 percent band of migrating middle-class Americans, those moved into $50,000-plus income categories by the Clinton-Gore economic miracle, who voted decisively for Bush-Cheney.
Education in the migrating middle class was also a factor. High-school graduates or voters with some college education, representing more than 50 percent of the electorate, voted by double digit margins for Clinton-Gore in 1996. In 2000, these same voters gave Bush-Cheney the nod by meaningful single digit margins. Their reason: Mr. Gore failed to target them with a message that resonated with their shifting social and economic needs.
Rather, his strategists chose to stand him outside steel mills in Pennsylvania hoping for big voter blocks to turn out on Election Day.
Minority demographics: While black voters turned out in higher numbers for the Democratic ticket in 2000, Mr. Bush gained 12 percent more of the Hispanic vote than Robert Dole earned in 1996. Hispanic voters made up almost as large a segment of the minority vote (8 percent) as blacks (10 percent) in 2000. Another significant Gore miscalculation was ignoring the Arab and Muslim vote in favor of Jewish voters who were already in the Democratic camp.
In 1996, Arabs and Muslims voted by a 3-to-1 margin for Clinton-Gore. In 2000, with an expanded and much more informed voter base of several million votes, the Arab-Muslim bloc dramatically shifted to Bush-Cheney by a 3-to-1 margin, effectively wiping out the Lieberman effect for Mr. Gore.
Shifting cultural values and soccer moms: One of the more compelling paradoxes of Mr. Gore's campaign was losing the religious vote. Adding a religious conservative to the ticket did little to help at the polling booth with the majority of Americans who attend churches, synagogues or mosques either weekly or more than once a week. They voted overwhelmingly for Bush-Cheney. Those who said they never attended religious institutions voted by a 3-to-1 margin for Gore-Lieberman.
Married couples voted by 8 percent for Mr. Bush over Mr. Gore. Soccer moms (couples with children) voted by 14 percent for the Bush ticket. Even Internet users, now 70 percent of the electorate, voted for Bush-Cheney by slim margins.
Mr. Gore failed to craft a message for the very voters Democrats had helped migrate up the curve of American opportunity. Lamenting that loss today will not help Democrats to address pressing matters on the national agenda.
The time has come to end obfuscation, misdirection and an inability to accept responsibility as the hallmarks of Democratic leadership in this country. We need to usher in a new generation of Democrats who can acknowledge shortcomings, credit political opponents with what they do right as America weathers the storm of its foreign adversaries, and build a strategy that continues to empower America's disenfranchised in a way that makes us better able to cope with emerging threats — together, as Americans.
well this man's father was a pakistani nuclear scientist.
i am not using any innuendos here.
Pakistani ties to alqaeda and taliban are no secret.
neither is pakistan's nuclear proliferation to iran, libya and north korea.
infact Pakistan is responsible for all your present day proliferation and terror
yet instead of asking for this country to be taken out and broken into small little states that can never threaten america again, mansoor wants to give it F-16's to defend itself from a US led attack in the future.
I mean this guy is either dumb or he's a traitor. You tell me which one he is.
if we had proof of his treason, he'd be in jail right?
but we can still draw conclusions from his policy statements can't we?
I mean this guy is a liberal under a liberal govt, a conservative under a conservative one.
He is neither a liberal nor a conservative, swapping his loyalties depending on whose in govt.
however their is just one consistency in all his stances, he always supports pakitan.
what conclusions would you draw there.
I seriously doubt china would sponsor terror, considering it's own islamic minority
China has strong ties to pakistan. But it also has very good trade relations with us.
We need to move china away from pakistan. we don't need to push it towards pakistan and iran.
China is too big. it doesn't threaten our interests and it can really be a destabilizing force if we push china into the islamic fold.
the muslims would love to have china, russia and europe on their side.
We don't have to be fools to let that happen, we already have our hands full with 1 billion muslims.
How would alienating china and pushing it into the islamic fold help us? I mean every action has to justify a purpose right?
what do you want to do with china and why do you want to do it?
we need to just stay focused on the islamic world and take china, russia and europe alongwith us to deny the islamic world allies.
what would you call a guy who has no loyalties to either the liberal or the conservative american thought, but strong loyalties to pakistan and the islamic world under both the liberals and conservatives?
If our hands are full against 1 billion muslims what are we doing spending 126 billion setting up Muslim governments in both Iraq and Afghanistan and spending millions in aid to many Muslim countries like Egypt and Turkey?
Also, why are there 8-10 Million Muslims in the United States growing daily?
People like you that see the entire Muslim population as your enemy live in a strange warped fantasy world. Apparently you don't get the fact that the Iraqi government and the Afghani government are Muslim nor that there are millions of American Muslims here.
War is against a radical sect of fundamentalists, not the 1 billion Muslims in the world nor fellow Americans.
You fail to realize that
1- the communist system was our enemy
2- That the nazi ideology was our enemy.
3- That islam is our enemy.
a- That people believing in islamic values threaten our freedom, liberties and way of life.
b- That islamic practices and values threaten to undo milleniums of human civilizations
C- That in the past we poured billions into iran, pakistan, afghanistan and somalia.
i- we reaped terror and war each time we helped an islamic nations.
ii- we don't have to shoot ourselves in the head.
iii- You have to realize that iran, pakistan, afghanistan and saudi arabia were our islamic friends, they turned their guns on us, the day they got the means to do so.
iv- Previously poverty had robbed these countries of these means.
iv- we don't have to build islamic countries only to have to wage war with them later on. You forget US aid to iran, afghanistan, Pakistan and somalia.
v- We instead need to focus on non islamic countries to serve as our allies against the islamic world.
vi- Instead of giving aid to pakistan and turkey, we should be giving it to russia, Phillipines, India, Greece, serbia, south america and non- muslim africa to recruit them as allies against the islamic world.
vii- We have seen how western intelligence cadres consisting of islamists lied to us about pakistani and saudi ties to terror; pakistani, iranian and libyan WMD programs; the iranian reform movement and the extent of militarism within the saudi society.
viii- we should do away with these cadres and recruit westerners, latinos and africans who would have no loyalties to islam or the region.
D- That islamic terror, embargoes and war aren't the result of just a small group of people. Instead it results from stark differences in our values and lifestyle, and islamic ambitions of global domination.
i- theseambitions originate amongst the masses and are then incorporated into govt policy to please the masses.
ii- The terror groups are sponsored by islamic govts
iii- terror groups also enjoy the support of the masses or else they wouldn't have been able to take shelter amongst them.
F- That we reaped domestic terror and islamic spies trying to destabilize us from within with islamic presence on US soil
g- that conflicting system of values would always lead to war.
i- The free world couldnt exist with the nazi ideology.
ii- capitalism couldnt co-exist with communism.
h- today the free world can't co- exist with islamic world, just as it couldn't with the nazi or communist ideology.
i- western values can't co-exist with islamic authoritarianism.
ii- the modern world can't co-exist with stone age islam.
iii- the civilized world can't co exist with islamic savagery, crooks, lies, scheming and conniving.
iv- Just like crooks and savages would wreak havoc in a society based on trust and personal responsibility, so do the islamists play havoc into our freedoms.
j- Finally islam has to be destroyed like the communist and nazi ideology were destroyed before it.
Those who don't believe Ijaz mansoor is an islamist, here is an excerpt from an article that freedom44 posted in his defense.
http://www.benadorassociates.com/pf.php?id=66
this is what mr ijaz had to say.
"I I voted for George Bush in 2000. Not because I espoused or embraced his compassionate conservatism, but because I could not support Al Gore's politically deceptive campaign in which many of the Clinton era promises to the very Americans they had helped empower — American Muslims key among them — were broken"
It may be true that your are not using any capital letters here but your use of innuendo has certainly been quite liberal- and repeating them in other words, with or without capital letters, does not make them true.
Ed Koch came out strongly for Bush way before the Democrat primaries. I believe he became a staunch Bush supporter after 0-11.
I know and remember but why if so is he donating 1 grand to Gephardt?
Koch, Edward
New York, NY 10104
Bryan Cave LLP/Attorney GEPHARDT, RICHARD A (D)
President
GEPHARDT FOR PRESIDENT INC. $1000 06/30/03
In June of 2003?
It's very difficult to catch spies. Proof is very hard to come by, because you don't have one or two odd people to watch.
The situation becomes hopeless if you have to use other muslims to catch their fellow muslims.
The MI5 found it very difficult, even though it was their own people.
Now think of having to catch spies with other muslims, when you don't even know what they are talking about.
Tie it to the fact that we are at war with the islamic world. Their loyalties at best would be questionable.
Furthermore, if we provide them with a comfortable enough environment to lie and spy and give them security by asking fellow muslims to watch them, i'd say we make it real tempting for them.
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.