Posted on 05/10/2006 7:15:13 PM PDT by Dems_R_Losers
Disaffection over spending and immigration have caused conservatives to take flight from President Bush and the Republican Congress at a rapid pace in recent weeks, sending Bush's approval ratings to record lows and presenting a new threat to the GOP's 12-year reign on Capitol Hill, according to White House officials, lawmakers and new polling data.
Bush and Congress have suffered a decline in support from almost every part of the conservative coalition over the past year, a trend that has accelerated with alarming implications for Bush's governing strategy.
The Gallup polling organization recorded a 13-percentage-point drop in Republican support for Bush in the past couple weeks. These usually reliable voters are telling pollsters and lawmakers they are fed up with what they see as out-of-control spending by Washington and an abandonment of core conservative principles more generally.
There are also significant pockets of conservatives turning on Bush and Congress over the their failure to tighten immigration laws, restrict gay marriage and to put an end to the Iraq war and the rash of political scandals, according to lawmakers and pollsters.
Bush won two presidential elections by pursuing a political and governing model that was predicated on winning and sustaining the loyal backing of social, economic and foreign policy conservatives. The strategy was based on the belief that conservatives, who are often more politically active than the general public, could be inspired to vote in larger numbers and would serve as a reliable foundation for his presidency. The theory, as explained by Bush strategists, is that the president would enjoy a floor below which his support would never fall.
It is now apparent that this floor has weakened dramatically and collapsed in places.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I understand that you think this is a big deal. That's what I understand.
If you've ever eaten in a restaurant, and was served water by an illegal, you're just as "guilty" as I am.
Put your hands up!!
The topic is language and compliance of the law, the breaking of which is committing a felony.
What does that have to do with Tancredo?
Hell if it means that Taccredo goes up the river then I would sacrifice Sinkspur. Sorry Sink. LOL
He hired illegals. He admitted it.
Better email your paragraphs to his office. Pronto.
When did "eating at a restaurant" make the diner become the employer of the restaurant employees?
It doesn't Einstein just as hiring a contractor does not make you responsible for his workers.
What does that have to do with Tancredo?
Uh because tancredo's basement theater was done with "illegal" labor. You don't see him wielding a sledge hammer to his basement theater because it was built with impure labor.
The topic is the language of the law and the resulting guilt of committing a felony if that law is not followed.
The topic was not whether that law applies only to Sinkspur. That's the point of having a law. It applies to all.
That one breaks the law does not give excuse, justification, or permission for others to do the same, nor does the breaking the law by one or more people nullify that law.
see post #1408, since you want to make up the same excuses for law breaking.
No that is your topic but your topic doesn't pertain to one person on this thread. You are now in a round room looking for a corner.
Then you better put out a warrant for your hero tom tancredo.
and you're dillusional
That you justify lawbreaking shames you, not me.
Oh, interesting. Have you hired illegal aliens? I mean, when you act so cavalier about it and dare someone to turn you in for it, that's a very easy assumption for someone to make. So, have you?
Yeah but that is different cause everyone knows that Tom would have NEVER paid less for illegal labor. It is the same as those that beat Bush over the head with Reagan when Reagan did far worse. They have a list a mile long excusing Reagan and then gripe when others make excuses for Bush. Hypocrites one and all.
Huh? Just following the tancredo example.
More than likely and I make no apologies for it. If you don't like stick where the sun don't shine. It's my hard earned money and none of your damned business.
Yep, hypcrites and control freaks about how buildings are built and food is grown, kinda of like democrats.
No, you were just following the others' example by justifying lawbreakers. You only jumped on the Tancredo bandwagon when you didn't like me stating that a law is not nullified because someone breaks it; therefore, the mentioning of a particular individual does not give rise to making excuses or justify anybody who breaks that law. And that was your intent.
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.