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 perfectly that you don't like negative items about Tancredo. They show you are a hypocrite.
I note I'm not the only one on this thread that has called you that.
Actually, no.
Too bad. I gained the information by doing a simple Google search. Most of it came from an actual Denver Post article, quoted within my information, to which I no longer have the URL . Like I said, I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you need help using Google, maybe you should step away from the keyboard and give your PC away to charity.
I just asked for a link. You didn't provide one. Whine elsewhere.
That is sabotage of the Republican party 101 by Democrats that will love you.
Ross Perot and the idiots who followed him split the conservative vote or stayed home. The end result was Clinton won with 46% of the vote and conservatives lost with a split 54% of the vote.
You would think a brick in the head the last time with Clinton should have educated you enough to not repeat getting hit in the head with a brick again. What does it take for some people to learn?
You do all you can to get the Republican you want in office for the primaries. If you don't get the right one in at that time, you still vote the Republican in, you do not sabotage it in favor of Democrats and then claim some intelligence behind the plan. I think that plan you have is quite flawed.
Welcome to FR by the way.
Let's keep THAT hard core one. What a platform!
Agreed, she has a Sophia Loren thing going on.
Many may be disappointed in some things , but are not "fleeing". Clinton, Kerry, Gore and Co are no answer to the problem.
I don't find that attractive. The weather reporters on the Spanish Channel are the HOTTEST EVA!!!!!!!!!
Here in CA they are mostly all SPANISH channels...
Clinton never got 46% of the vote. In 1992, he got 43%, and, in '96, he got 49%.
Sometimes, if a Republican is too liberal for me, I vote for a minor-party candidate. I read the poll results, in Oct. If the result is close, I vote for the Republican, since I don't want to help split the anti-Democrat vote, helping the Democrat win with less than a majority. If I know that the election won't be close, I vote for the candidate with whom I agree the most. In 2002, democrat governors were elected, with less than 50% of the vote in Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and Oregon, because, in each state, the anti-democrat vote was split between a Republican and a libertarian or conservative independent. No Republican was elected governor, in that year, because the liberals split their votes. The liberals were better at working together. I hope that, from now on, conservatives will work together better, in close elections.
Obviously, that means only small side offices have been ones you could vote other ways on, because when it comes to Gov, President and so on, I don't know in recent years if you have had any one sided votes at all.
I think there has been lots of close votes everywhere the last decade especially.
In what way am I a hypocrite?
Saying I am doesn't make what you say a fact or the truth.
It's called "spin".
No, the offices in which I voted for minor-party candidates weren't small offices. In 2000, when I lived in Calif., I knew that Sen. Feinstein would be reelected, and the republican candidate, Congressman Tom Campbell, was too liberal for me. I voted for Diane Templin, of the American Independent Party. In 2004, when I was registered in Illinois, I thought that Bush was too liberal. I predicted that Kerry would win 57% of the vote in IL, and I voted for Michael Peroutka, of the Constitution Party. Kerry won 57% in IL.
You condemn in others what you accept in Tancredo.
Another lie, you're just full of lies, aren't you?
Liar, huh? It's all right on this thread.
Lacking that proof, you're just smearing Conservative Republican Tom Tancredo because you detest those who want the immigration laws enforced. Those who do so have overwhelming shown it is because they willingly commit these felonies themselves for personal gain, know others who have who are their friends or family members, and/or promote others to commit these felonies, as well.
Both sinkspur and Texasforever were both quite clear when they stated that they both not only knew they hired illegals, they bragged about it and encourage others to do likewise. That more than meets the threshold of "knowingly" or "reasonably should have known" standards in "enabling/harboring/hiring of an illegal" is absurd. Your attempts to equate what Conservative Republican Tom Tancredo has done (legally hiring a contractor and NOT hiring illegal aliens or even knowingly hiring illegal aliens) with what sinkspur and Texasforever practice and promote is transparently clear: an attempt to smear Conservative Republican Tom Tancredo with lies.
You have done nothing throughout this thread but champion absurdities, spin, lies, false accusations against Conservative Republican Tom Tancredo, me, and others with whom you disagree. You've claimed I "worship Trancredo" although it was not I who brought him up. The FROBL groupies have, for one reason and for one reason only: to justify lawbreaking by making this about Conservative Republican Tom Tancredo. I will state, yet again: this is NOT about Tom Tancredo, or you or your friends. It's about existing LAW and enforcing LAW. As it is written, those who break it commit felonies. It is irrelevant what Tom Tancredo says or does, what sinkspur says or does, what Texasforever says or does, or what you say or do. The law does not change according to ANY PERSON'S words or deeds. That makes me anything BUT a hypocrite, yet another unsubstantiated lie you repeat. Because your brain apparently is unable to grasp or comprehend, I repeat for at least the 15th time on this thread:
The fact remains quite simple: the law does not become void because x, y, or z individuals and companies break it. If that were the case, then all laws are meaningless (as they are all broken daily); and if all laws are void and should not be enforced because too many people break them, there would be no need for police, judges, juries, or a legal system.
That YOU continue to make this about personalities and persons, you obviously desire the law to distinguish between persons. But a law that is applied in that manner is not a law at all. Conservatives historically have sought to have the Rule of Law upheld, irrespective of persons.
And for that, it is YOU who are the hypocrite.
I am on the side of enforcing the laws, irrespective of who is in 'my' camp, irrespective of their name, age, rank, position, gender, location, faith, education, or political affiliation. It's about being on the side of law enforcement, not personalities. To claim that I have continued to maintain anything BUT that, it is also YOU who is the liar.
And yes, it's ALL right on this thread exactly what YOU and your groupies are.
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.