Posted on 05/11/2006 8:25:42 PM PDT by Burr5
There has been a rising tide of opinion expressed these last few days on Talk Radio regarding the impulse to vote against Republicans in the upcoming congressional election in order to punish them for their whorish pandering to illegal aliens, their fiscal irresponsibility, and their general disregard of the demands of the conservative base. I have heard echoes of this on Rush Limbaugh, Mike Gallagher, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Rielly.
We should be worried about this attitude. Especially those of us who remember 1992. In George H.W. Bush's second presidential attempt, a conservative rebellion (over tax policy) and the insurgent candidacy of a purported "economic conservative" (Ross Perot), resulted in the election of the most venal, irresponsible, demogogic criminal in the history of American politics. 43% of the electorate was enough to give us eight years of Clinton.
So would sitting this one out, or voting for a Libertarian get us closer to where we want to be? Everyone realizes that a conservative temper tantrum at the polls will only serve to grant power to the Democrats. Would this "teach the Republicans a lesson"?
Perhaps. But where would we be then? We are at war. The Democrats believe the war is Bush's fault. 9-11 was an aberation. It will not happen again even if we don't listen in on Al-Qaeda's phone conversations. We will be safe if we pull out of Iraq. There will NEVER be a justification for bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. There will be no more war for oil, and yet the Caribou in ANWR will still be safe from the predations of Exxon-Mobil.
Domestically, we can expect the likes of Charles Rangle and Ron "Red" Dellums to hold the reins of power in the House of Representatives. The Bush economy will not be destroyed; things will simply become more "fair" for women and minorities.
And, of course, the great gains we are making in the corrupt, tyrannical judiciary will come to a screeching halt. If you're alright with the "right" of irresponsible young women to hire doctors to shove a metal implement into the skull of their partially born babies, and to have them crack open the skulll, vacuum out the brain matter as the tiny arms silently flap around, and then throw the corpse into the trash, then the make-up of congress may not be of much importance to you when the next confirmation hearing comes around. Chairman Leahy- Say no more.
Politics is a TEAM SPORT, ladies and gentlemen, and one does not express one's dissatisfaction with the team's effort by aiding the opposing team.
Do not let the party of treason, greed, corruption, infanticide, demogougerey, hypocricy and judicial tyranny gain power.
It could take another forty years to get it back.
A clever, subtle and more effectively packaged recitation of Howard Dean's... talking points.
What a lovely compliment. Except I have never seen or heard HD's talking points on this subject, and have been thinking this for at least 3 years, ever since the collapse of Enron and those other companies.
What was the famous talking point, something about it being easier to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven (at least if he got rich by exploiting others).
As for the Bush 1 comment, I don't like tax increases any more than the rest. But I don't like the idea that my grandchildren are going to be saddled with the irresponsible spending of today's porkers.
P.S. - nopardens- Pinged you on this one to make up for the missed ping earlier. Sorry.
Hey I'm up too late as well! Finals.
"There will NEVER be a justification for bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. "
Wouldn't bombing a Nuclear facility be a bad idea?
Sounds like you have the same problem facing you that is appearing in New Orleans, Ray Wonka or Mitch Stalin.
And I was referring to the fact that there are gaping holes in your knowledge, which can and should be fix. And I never said that you had to go to Harvard or Yale to do so. Most people are actually quite capable of being self taught; however, that does usually only work when one can read with full comprehension.
I'm not the one putting you down; YOU keep doing that job all on your ownsome.
Are YOU "feeling better" now? ;^)
And FWIW, the Islamonazi terrorists ( well, the ones who didn't come across a physical border, came here via planes, that is ), who did cross a border, CROSSED INTO AMERICAN FROM CANADA. Canada, BTW, has one of THE largest collections of Muslims living therein and many of them are very pro-terrorist; if they aren't ones themselves. Canada is also a nation with far more lax immigration policies that ours.
Oh well, cool, let's pass the ball to the 'rats, that'll fix it! Let's go for a re-run of 1992, that'll fix it good!
WTF, man???... Put the rats back in power and there won't BE a border. But there will be 60 million new Reconquista voters, and you'll never see anyone further to the right of Hillary in office again. Not to mention that reconquista nitwit in San Francisco will get elected to the Senate and introduce a bill to disband the military.
Yes, I did, didn't I? :-)
The sides of this debate should be legal immigrants versus illegal aliens.
Neither the House or the Senate bill is going to punish anyone for helping those in need of food, water, shelter or medical help whether they are legal or not. Our soldiers in Iraq help sick and wounded people they do not even know, including those who try to kill them. If a combatant is wounded it matters not to them who needs treatment, they all get the same attention no matter what their status.
The current US Code for illegal entry is defined as a crime but not a felony. The crime as currently written allows a penalty up to one year for "improper entry by alien." The House bill adds "unlawful presence" to the code and increases the penalty to one year plus one day, which elevates the offense to "felony" status.
Whether the House bill will actually lead to more enforcement of immigration laws is speculative at best, since the US is very lax in enforcing our current laws and have been for a long time. The worst an illegal alien can probably expect is deportation, which to folks who live near our borders is just an invitation to try again and again to enter the country looking for work or worse.
Nobody, not in the history of this nation, and the illegal alien problem, from our Southern border was horrendous in the early 1950s and at other times as well, has EVER completely "sealed" any border; let alone the Southern one.
LOL...good night; I'm off as well.
well, uh, yeah. sure. man. course, any thinking person would have to be a fool not to wonder what the demrats might do. (i don't believe them either.) but, well, what do we compare them to ... uh ... the gops who have PROVED BEYOND ALL DOUBT WHATSOVEVER what they will do? yes. on the one hand ... probably not. on the other hand ... no doubt whatsoever. hm. all of a sudden, president hilosi doesn't sound quite as bad.
You really shouldn't post when you've been drinking.
why not? i make more sense than you do when you're sober.
Hit it again.
'k. so what.
I say yes, teach them a lesson. If they wont grow a spine, screw'em.
No, you weren't.
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.