Wrong again, which is not surprising. Go back and check my messages on the Miers nomination. I disagreed with the President on the Miers nomination and called and emailed my representatives to fight against it. I'm fine with people who want to take a harder line on immigration doing the same. What I am NOT fine with are people threatening to stay home from the polls and allow liberals to be elected because they did not get everything that they wanted. Such an approach is foolish, shortsighted, and ultimately bound to lead to even greater catastrophe. I remember the 1992 election, when many Republicans wanted to send a message to Bush 41 for his (admittedly wrong) stance on taxes. How'd that Perot vote work out for us? Eight years of Bill Clinton, that's how.
Perhaps you'd rather watch this country suffer under liberal leadership so that you can crow about how you "taught the GOP a lesson". I love my country too much to subject her to that.
But if you want to claim that "our guys" and "their guys" are about the same (with the libs being just a little bit worse) on amnesty for illegals, federal justices, huge tax increases, defense cuts, abortion on demand, gay marriage and the War on Terror, then you've lost your mind, with all due respect.
"What I am NOT fine with are people threatening to stay home from the polls and allow liberals to be elected because they did not get everything that they wanted."
But what about people who didn't get ANYTHING they wanted?
What about people who got the OPPOSITE of everything they wanted?
What if the Republicans installed a militantly pro-choice Supreme Court justice?
Isn't that really what just happened to the Border Conservatives?
They said: Build a wall, enforce the law on employers, no amnesty.
They got: no wall, no mention of enforcement on employers, and guest-worker-cum-amnesty.
That's like handing me Christopher Shays, a pro-abortion Republican.
What do you do, faced with that?