Posted on 12/16/2005 3:44:12 AM PST by arnoldpalmerfan
You're right, there are dozens of George Allen, Jr.'s, serving in both house of Congress, but especially the Senate, just bearing different names.
"Rudy Giuliani is the only street fighter in the bunch. He will not tolerate illegal immigration ..."
Funny. NYC is a sanctuary city. He seemes to tolerate illegals just fine .
"I don't get all the talk about this guy for 08. He seems like another limp wristed white-bred patsie politician who will back down to the RATS no different than the rest of them.
We need a scrapper and a street fighter. I am sick of these lilly white phony scared of their own shadow RINO politicians who always overpromise and underdeliver.
If this continues, the RATS are a lock for 08."
Ditto!!!!
Here is a link to a September 24, 2002, Michelle Malkin column that mentions that ex-Mayor Guliani's sanctuary policy: http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1886 . Here is a copy of a portion of the article:
"When Congress enacted immigration reform laws that forbade local governments from barring employees from cooperating with the INS, Mayor Rudy Giuliani filed suit against the feds in 1997. He was rebuffed by two lower courts, which ruled that the sanctuary order amounted to special treatment for illegal aliens and were nothing more than an unlawful effort to flaunt federal enforcement efforts against illegal aliens. In January 2000, the Supreme Court rejected his appeal, but Giuliani vowed to ignore the law.
The Twin Towers are gone and Giuliani is out of office, but the city's policy of safe harbors for illegal immigrants stands."
Let's see.......
"Your" party is the party controlled by George Soros and Move.On, Al Franken, Babs Streisand, George Clooney, Little Dick Durbin, Ted ( the swimmer ) Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Chuckie Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons, etc, etc, etc. Need I go on???
I'm thrilled that you choose to be in the company of those people. I'm sure that you are a thorn in their side. But, you called these people "worthy" adversaries?? You are joking, aren't you?? Call them for what they are: unAmerican, socialist, traitors.
And while there are some nut cases within the Republican Party, they certainly don't come close to being the danger that the above group represents.
If you think that the left wing moonbats who control your party will nominate Bayh or Warner, you are delusional.
Time to wake up and smell the coffee. The very worst Republican is the very best democRAT. I don't see that changing any time soon, and I don't see a democRAT entering The White House for years and years to come. And that will happen ONLY if you "purge" your party of the unAmerican, left wing defeatist, socialists from within. Good luck. You need it!!
Mark Warner? Allen my be squishy on illegals.......but Warner will welcome them with open arms.
PING...............
"And I don't see a democRAT entering The White House for years and years to come."
All it takes next time is Ohio to go RAT and the GOP is done.
I hope you don't buy the Mehlman Mayonaiise on every issue.
The GOP is a slow death compared to the quick suicide of the RATS. Either way, we are on the WRONG TRACK!
So, to paraphrase Patton, you'd rather have a Democrat division in front of you than a Republican division behind you.
Allen's apostasy certainly adds credence to such a philosophy.
"So, is the problem GOP fear or cowardice?"
That's probably part of it, but I think the bigger issue is hubris. The Republican party seems more interested in how the goodies get distributed than it is in representing the people that put them in power in the first place. The Republican party is of the opinion that conservatives have no place else to go, so they can do pretty much what they please.
To a certain extent they're right. But what they miss is that in our current electoral environment, whether you win or lose is determined by whether your own base shows up, not if the so-called "swing voters" choose to vote for you. "Swing voters" (along with the bulk of the population) simply aren't showing up on election day.
The Democrats don't need to run a stellar candidate to win in 2008. All they need is for conservatives to decide that it isn't worth the hassle to vote for the GOP candidate.
That's what happened in Virginia last month, and absent the Democratic party picking an absolutely horrible candidate or the GOP picking a stellar one, that's how I suspect 2008 will play out.
"Your" party is the party controlled by George Soros and Move.On, Al Franken, Babs Streisand, George Clooney, Little Dick Durbin, Ted ( the swimmer ) Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Chuckie Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons, etc, etc, etc. Need I go on???"
None of these individuals, with the obvious exception of 'she-who-must-not-be-named' will be running. People focus on the person on the ticket, not the person hidden from view.
"I'm thrilled that you choose to be in the company of those people. I'm sure that you are a thorn in their side. But, you called these people "worthy" adversaries?? You are joking, aren't you?? Call them for what they are: unAmerican, socialist, traitors."
You'd be surprised. Strange as it may sound, I find that I have very little problem with my Democratic contemporaries because of my conservative politics. Perhaps because it's so unusual to find a conservative Democrat these days. Or perhaps it's because I live in a southern state where conservative Democrats still exist.
You know, labels such as "unAmerican", "socialist", "traitor", or "demoncRAT" have been used so much in political discourse in the last ten years that they've pretty much lost their sting. If the GOP is hoping to remain in power by whipping up a fear frenzy, they're using an outdated playbook. It starts sounding shrill after awhile, and people just tune it out.
I suggest that a better way for the GOP to win is to deliver conservative policies to the conservative base that elected them in the first place.
"Mark Warner? Allen my be squishy on illegals.......but Warner will welcome them with open arms."
Well, I don't agree with you on that point, but for the sake of discussion, let's assume that you're 100% correct. And just who would be representing the political views of the majority of their base?
Mark Warner could welcome illegal aliens with open arms and win. George Allen couldn't.
"So, to paraphrase Patton, you'd rather have a Democrat division in front of you than a Republican division behind you."
Yup.
"Let’s assume we wanted to build the Great Wall of America, which can be done, it would take years and years."
Not really. We just hire the company that built the Israeli wall.
Kiss my butt goodbye Allen. You're another border wussie.
Middle of the Road means what?????
I am waiting for what someone "in the middle" believes or stands for.
Go spread your Mehlman mayonaise on your toast.
Nothing what I want???? WTF are you talking about???
We are being literally invaded by third world low skill labor and our president wants to blame the minutemen?
GWB tells us he thinks CFR is unconstitutional yet signs it in to law - explain that one???????
Drug bill for seniors who don't need it while claiming SS is going broke???? Explain that one!
AMT is still law.
Keep believing the talking points. They make you sound really informed.
If the GOP puts up lilly-white patsie like we have in the Senate (Allen) or some other phony, the RATS are likely to win. It will not be because he or she gets more votes, it will be because many of us will stay home.
Your post was interesting, and I appreciate your taking the time to respond.
A few comments, starting from the bottom.
-Party registration in Virginia. I thought it was commonly held knowledge-that primaries are open in Virginia. You can also be a dues paying member of an organized political party in the Commonwealth. Perhaps there's some confusion over semantics here.
-I didn't comment on any of the individuals you've listed, except to note that none of them are running for President. FWIW, I don't find any of them attractive.
-I'm not in a position of leadership within the Democratic party. So I have no ability to "purge" anyone, and would have no desire to do so in any case. "Purges" are a relic of authoritarian regimes such as communism under joseph stalin. I'll leave those tactics to tyrants.
- As for my own conservative political views, well, conservatism is in the eye of the beholder. It appears that the litmus test you're using is membership in the GOP. I obviously wouldn't meet that test. But I guess John McCain, Lincoln Chafee, and Trent Lott would.
I don't know that there is a litmus test out there for "adequate conservatism" to be demonstrated by FReepers, but given that I'm still here and still posting, I guess I haven't failed the test yet.
-As for lecturing the GOP on how to win, you're reminding me of Rush Limbaugh's wisdom: when your opposition is messing up, the best thing to do is stand back and let them do so.
-As for the No Spin Zone, the most inappropriately named program on talk radio, I don't listen to it much. I prefer listening to Sean Hannity.
In conclusion, you have some good points, and I really do appreciate the fact that you took the time to type out a response. I would note, however, that the way that you engage in debate makes you appear angry or agitated.
If on the other hand I have somehow personally offended you, rest assured that it was not intentional and I do apologize if that's the case.
"So.....as a fan of Mark (my only accomplishment as Governor was to raise your taxes) Warner, you'll also not only vote for him, but, you'll welcome all of the "illegal" aliens also. Am I correct??"
No. I disagree with illegal immigration, and see our porous borders as being one of the biggest security threats that we face.
My point was that Mark Warner could, should he elect to, come out in favor of open immigration and not run into a problem with his Democratic base, given that many Democrats favor relatively loose immigration restrictions.
To my knowledge, Mark Warner has not made such a statement. And I doubt that he will, if for no other reason than I don't think it reflects his beliefs.
On the other hand, the Republican base is generally in opposition to open immigration policies. So George Allen is not in a position of being able to voice a position in favor of open immigration.
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.