Posted on 04/12/2006 1:07:47 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too
We’ve all seen the e-mail sent out days before an election: “Democrats vote on Tuesday, Republicans vote on Wednesday. Don’t forget to vote! Wink, wink.” Or vice versa. Republicans can be just as juvenile. Generally speaking, such “friendly reminders” are sent as a joke, which then may or may not actually trick a few people. Probably those who are tricked are better off not voting anyway, but that is another point altogether. (In case you haven’t voted recently, everyone votes on Tuesday.)
But there seems to be a new “Republicans vote on Wednesday” taking form in time for the 2006 election. This effort targets grassroots conservatives known for their passionate views about issues who may be open to a grassroots voting rebellion. But the effort is being led, or at the very least aided, by liberals pretending to be grassroots conservatives, as opposed to actual grassroots conservatives themselves.
[snip]
But the pretend-conservative act is being carried onto a whole new playing field, one that has become wildly influential over the past few years and one that does not stand to be instantly recognized as a fake. That playing field is the blogosphere, which is then used in conjunction with massive e-mailings to “spread the word” (as one e-mailer insisted I do to my readers/e-mail list) to other conservatives.
The concept is the same: the blog or e-mail claims, first, that the said writer has been a conservative for years and that they have “had it with Republicans.”
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
The blogs and e-mails are convincing in their wording and could incite the sort of reaction that occurred following the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court. Of course, any liberal could read Free Republic and find out what’s irritating conservatives this week, grab a handful of phrases, and toss it on their “I’m a conservative but voting for a Democratic because of (insert issue here)” blog.
It has to be far more subtle than that. What kind of idiot would react to Bush’s lame appointment of not-conservative-enough Harriet Miers by announcing that they would vote for a Democrat.
That’s like announcing your intention to throw some more logs on the fire because it’s burning too hot.
And Bay Buchanan is co-chair of Tancredo's PAC.
So why are you here?
Exactly right. This article is posted on townhall.com, at the end of the article there are several comments. Practically every one of them is in agreement with you. (and me).
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/DustinHawkins/2006/04/12/193287/comments.html
"Lots of disinformation libs post on this board pretending to be Republicans and/or conservatives.
And they've all jumped on the Bash Bush on illegal immigration band wagon."
So in your opinion, anyone who is disenchanted with Bush and the spineless Republicans in the Senate are libs or faux republicans and/or conservatives? If this is the case, you and the republicans are living in a fairy tale world, that will come crashing down on all of you in the up and coming elections.
I worked hard for the re-election of G.W. It may not seem like much to you, but as a retired person on a fixed income, I sacrificed my luxuries to send the Swiftboat Vets a little over $500 over the course of the campaign. I manned phone lines hours on end and I have a right to complain when our president is letting our country down. You may spin it anyway you choose, but the fact is NO ONE wanted G.W. to succeed any more than I did.
I will not turn a blind eye to his faults when they affect my quality of life. Those of us that did not support his nomination of Harriet Miers for SC justice were attacked endlessly here, but WE WERE RIGHT! If we would have just blindly followed his wishes, I believe our courts would have suffered.
I am a conservative, above all else. I recognize the fact that neither Bush or the Senate are doing anything more than paying lip service to Americans when it comes to ILLEGAL immigrants. When our own president calls our minutemen "VIGILANTES" his true colors or extreme ignorance is showing through. This does not make us Bush haters. There is a big difference between disappointment and hate.
Nonsense. The Democrats are trying to rid themselves of Lieberman who is more liberal than our RINOs are conservative. They aren't doing it because they want to lose that seat to a Republican.
You go after the RINOs that you have a good chance of replacing with a conservative. McCain comes to mind.
No, you're making an extrapolation based on your own sensational interpertation of the meaning of my post....with that foray into speculation of yours.
In Hoc beleives in Valid Criticism...constuctive...when it comes to the POTUS. Those that Bash, just to get some certain amount of glee from it...dont really appreciate. I think Bush has a lot on his plate and he's made some good decisions and some bad ones.
In Hoc loves to Bash libs because there is no real equivolence in holding back on them. Dems are typically factless opportunists that would sell this country down the river to further their personal agenda...many of that kind post here...when they see other Freepers hoping on a hate Bush rant...they fan those flames, and then pat themselves on the back thinking they're turning more people against the POTUS.
Bush is a good guy, warts and all, let's try to remember that when keeping him honest about illegal immigration.
Oh I agree. I think they'd just be happy if we stayed home. When conservatives and/or religious fundementalists come out to vote, we generally win.
Demoralizing us--to cause us to stay home on election day--is the real goal.
I've lost my sense of irony.
reminds me of all the lifelong "conservatives" in 1998 who were so apalled at impeachment, they went down to city hall, sometime on a sunday even, and registered as a DEM
Thanks for clearing that up.
Thanks for posting this old thread.
It is interesting to see many of the same Bush haters mouthing the same bs before the 2000 election and still mouthing the same bs now.
"I prefer to call them DICCs (Democrats in conservative clothing) ";^)"
DICCs is very good.
"Bush, however delivered the final torpedo with his Pro-Illegal stance."
The stance of President Bush is the same today, that it was years ago.
He is FOR worker programs/legal status. He has stated repeatedly he is AGAINST automatic amnesty. He has repeatedly supported greater border enforcement.
Thoose were his positions during 2000 and 2004, when he campaigned for election.
He won election with those positions, twice.
You mean this isn't it?
-PJ
I recall reading somewhere that the Democrats were encouraging people to vote for DeLay in the Texas open primary in order to have him win the primary so he can lose in the general election. He did win the primary only to drop out a few weeks later.
-PJ
Thanks for your, "Why am I not surprised ping!".
No problem. Last thing we need to start doing is eating our own...starting with the POTUS.
No matter what Bush says or does, for this type of poster Bush is never conservative enough. They often call him a "statist" or "socialist."
I live in one of the most conservative areas of the country. Most of the people here in Indiana aren't particularly upset at the President....they are mad at Governor Daniels for getting the legislature to put us on Daylight Savings Time. LOL!
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.