"A HOUSE DIVIDED" - Pukin's FReeperversary Rant

It is getting somewhat strange around these parts when not only the President, but yesterday the First Lady was personally attacked by someone claiming to be a ‘Conservative’. Can there be any doubt that there are forces among us looking to drive a wedge between us?

A few weeks ago, this forum’s owner attempted to remind all of us of the big picture, that regardless of any personal animosity towards the President or Republican Party over their adherence to Conservative principles, that they are still a clear choice over the alternative Democrat Party rule. At that time, I assumed that FReeper-sanity had been restored, and that some of the negative rhetoric aimed at those in Washington D.C. would be dialed back.

Free Republic is a political forum with a proud history and vision, responsible for dragging Dan Rather from his post, and providing countless radio-talk shows with their daily talking points. FReepers are unique in their determination and energy towards protecting and defending the goals of our Founding Fathers.

We are also quite a powder keg of emotion and anticipation, expecting our Republican majorities to take advantage of this opportunity to make permanent gains in our Conservative agenda. Some might argue that this opportunity has been squandered, but those persons would be ignorant of history, lacking understanding that change cannot occur overnight in Washington, and that this is the way our Founders designed our Republic.

In frustration, impatience, and ignorance, we have allowed this forum to become a haven for those who do not share our Conservative goals. I do not blame our enemies anymore then I would blame a scorpion for stinging me. If anger and stupidity were one’s nature, I would expect the trolls that infect this forum to be angry and stupid consistently, which also makes them somewhat easy to detect.

The trolls are not the problem, though. The problem is that so many of us are allowing ourselves to be taken in by those who seek only to prevent us from going to the polls in November to keep their stinking hands off our government for another term. There can be no doubt, that no matter how disappointing our current government has been in promoting the Conservative agenda, that the alternative, enabled by our staying home will be MUCH worse.

The way to deal with Republicans who have actively worked against our goals is to defeat them in Primary elections. We do not even have to defeat them all, only enough of them to send the message that we will indeed target them if they work against our agenda. It should be the goal of EVERY conservative to see that Lincoln Chaffee is defeated in November. His seat is one we can afford to lose. Were I a Rhode Island resident, I would vote for the Democrat if only to send a message to Snowe, Hagel, Collins, Graham, and especially that bastard Specter that their primaries just got a lot tougher.

We only need to get one of them, and Chaffee is the one to get. It does not really matter if a Democrat takes his seat; he will be junior and mute as long as we maintain our overall majority in the Senate.

The one thing that bothers me here like nothing else, is the simple disrespect of the President. Am I am Bush-Bot? Damn straight I am. If you want to know why, click on my handle to read Southack’s excellent list of Bush’s accomplishments in office. But if Bush had done almost nothing in office, it would be no excuse for some of the slights and disrespect he has received from some of us on this forum.

Some of the things I have read here this past week match in tone what one can find on our favorite Democrat sewer site. Someone calling himself or herself a FReeper was promoting shooting aliens at the border until they stopped coming. Is that what we are about? Obviously not, and that so-called Conservative has been eliminated from this forum.

I think it is important to remember that you and I have just as much responsibility as George Bush does in changing our culture to better reflect Conservative values. Right now, this very moment, Conservatives have the government they deserve. We put them there. They are not our mommies and daddies sent out to bring home our Conservative bread. That responsibility lies with all of us. These Republicans represent us, they don’t serve us. Our job is to pick the best individual and send him/her to Washington in the hope that their CHARACTER will see them through.

This is why it is such a nutty thing to consider punishing the Republican party, when we should be letting them know that we’ve got their back, but if they cant do the job, we will replace them with ANOTHER Republican, instead of handing the reigns of government to the party of anger, hopelessness and despair. We sometimes like to think that those people we send to Washington are different from us, that they are capable of meeting our every need and desire.

I want every one of you to think about what you would consider to be your perfect mate. Maybe some of you think you have found that person. If you are married and totally in love with another person, that is great. Now I want to ask you to think about the last time that person you love, who is PERFECT for you, completely pissed you off. Remember, this is your perfect mate, your one true love. Do they do everything you want them to do? Obey your every desire? If you answer yes, I am going to put you on my troll list.

Those people in Washington do not even cut your lawn, yet you expect perfection. Get over it.

I am issuing a challenge to every person who considers him or her to be a Conservative; why don’t we all commit to a return to HONOR? Do we honor our Conservative agenda when we comport ourselves in disgraceful ways? Is it an honorable thing to suggest that our President is a moron, as I read here a few days ago? Is it honorable to attack Laura Bush or any other person representing true Conservative values?

Some of you might argue that George Bush is not representing Conservative values to your liking. I would remind you that the first thing Bush said upon taking office, is that he was going to be President of ALL the people, not just some. You know that if you followed Bush from the beginning that he campaigned of the very immigration platform he is defending right now. Did you vote for him? Yeah?

If you have ever had a steak at a Ruth’s Chris restaurant, you know that sometimes they bring that wonderful steak to your table with a sprig of parsley on it. I hate parsley. Hate it. If I were to treat my steak the way some of us want to treat our President, I would have to throw out the steak, due to that nasty parsley that comes with it. I can deal with the parsley to get the steak, and that is what I am asking FReepers to do.

Expecting perfection from any person, group or team is a recipe for disaster. George W. Bush is my president. You can disagree with him, you can blame him for your problems if that is your desire. If you disrespect his office, his service, his risking his life to be with our troops in Iraq, his steadfast desire to bring a new tone to Washington, or if you just like the way he keeps Democrats so pissed off they lose their minds on a regular basis, I ask you to treat him and his wife with respect and cut the personal attacks. If you call him ‘Shrub’ or ‘Jorge’ consider yourself my enemy.

Right now, our real enemy are the Main Stream Media, the Democrat Party, and all who follow and support them. If you want to jump-ugly on someone, why not start with those leaky bastards and give our side a break?

Middle Tennessee has indeed become a major destination point for illegal immigrants because of the ongoing construction work available and the near-total lack of employer enforcement. 100,000 may be too conservative a number for a population that shuns accountability as a matter of course. You know of my scrapes with them as a holdout while they drove my former legal immigrant neighbors away with crime, noise, graffiti, pollution, disrespect and overall obnoxiousness. Their ranks are swelling with every new bus-liner arriving at the Adame depot behind Nolensville Road ("Nothing Runs Like a ~~Greyhound~~ Coyote!").

The OBLs would change their tune in a hurry if they had to survive the conditions I listed. Where's the sympathy for the poor and retired citizens stuck in the ever-growing barrio who have to bar their windows and watch their meager properties fall in value? Perhaps they're written off as part of "the rabble" who's role is to shut up and take it. Woe unto those who dare to bray about bad representation - they'll just be kicked to the curb like a pukin' dog by authorities with hearts as black as onyx. If those citizens banded together and marched through the stadium shouting seditious slogans they'd be incarcerated and convicted with no pardons. Do you smell what the Rokke is cookin'?

Seriously, we should follow the advice of the Minutemen and vote for the most conservative candidates available. The current state of our nation is directly attributable to voters choosing "the lesser evil" and receiving evil for their efforts. The phenomenon mentioned earlier of out-going politicos assigned the dirty work is true - apparent in the capitulation we saw last Monday and in the comments by the departing Bill Frist ("a wall is useless, they'll just go around it") right after he sent a mass email supporting one. We all deserve better than that.

insufficiently loyal to the GOP on various policies

You mean as in "oath of fealty"?

Here is the result of "sufficiently loyal".

The truth is, there is about 30% of the voting public in each camp who vote for the party no matter what. The Republicans have so-called conservatives who would vote for Arlen Specter rather than Thomas Jefferson, because Specter is a Republican and Jefferson was a Democrat. On the Democrat side, they have a group who would vote for Zell Miller rather than Lincoln Chafee, because Miller is a Democrat and Chafee is a Republican.

Neither of these groups have any political clout. They are irrelevant to the political debate.

Neither party, nor any politician, has to work to get their vote. Consequently, their issues are of no concern to either party.

You've been had, and don't even know it!

The least you could do is post an Opus ;)

Seriesly, I'm getting to be more and more a border-bot as each day goes by, but I am not very proud of my political allies on this issue. FR has ALWAYS purged "pitchforkers" - they don't want to become a right-leaning version of DU (angry and fringe). One trick many border bots have been using in this banning squabble, you just employed:

"who instantly show up on any immigration thread and start attacking the more conservative posters"

"Conservative" covers a lot of ground, yet in this context, you have narrowed it to someone who is hawkish on the border. I've seen this kind of behavior in social conservatives, tax hawks, deficit hawks, libertarians, judicial watchers, etc. Each group has members that deine conservatism as their view on their "issue".

Conservatism is much bigger than that. I am a social conservative, 100% for the WOT and Iraq, a little squishy on taxation/regulation, and am in favor of a wall, a guest worker program (later - and applications have to be made in the country of origin), and NO path to citizenship for illegals - at all. Yet many here, from many camps, tell me I am not "conservative".

Just don't like the word game. "Conservative" is NOT defined as "close the borders and deport all illegals". That may be a subset (although I don't agree), but it is not THE definition.

I am a social conservative, 100% for the WOT and Iraq, a little squishy on taxation/regulation, and am in favor of a wall, a guest worker program (later - and applications have to be made in the country of origin), and NO path to citizenship for illegals - at all. Yet many here, from many camps, tell me I am not "conservative".

I would debate you on the guest worker program - I think increased legal immigration after the borders are secured would be a better way to go, given the problems Europe has created with its guest worker programs.

Otherwise, we're of pretty similar viewpoints and I think your positions are squarely conservative. And I do agree some folks on the borderbot side take things too far, but that is more a symptom of problems with internet discourse.

The reason I am so inflexible about border security first is threefold - first, Reagan's failed amnesty shows we need security first and status changes second. Next, Bush is forming alliances with Dems and RINOs to get his agenda, just as he did with the Medicare prescription benefit - and that indicates he is on the wrong side of the issue, something that his boosters simply cannot bring themselves to even consider, despite the history of bad things happening when Bush and Ted Kennedy are on the same side of an issue (such as education and Medicare prescription benefits).

And third, I see Bush just causing irreperable harm to the GOP over this issue. He doesn't even have to drop his guest worker proposal - just put it off a couple of years and instead work to improve security and enforcement in the meantime. I disagree with guest workers, but am willing to debate and compromise once border security is improved.

But all we hear from the Bush supporters is that the border bots are jeopardizing the GOP, when it is Bush's stance here that is causing the harm. So we are stuck debating posters who refuse to learn from history, refuse to see that Bush being allied with the Dems is an indicator that he is up to no good on this issue, and get it completely backwards as to who is harming the party over this issue.

Which makes it rather hard to have any kind of reasoned discourse - you cannot use reason to coax someone out of a position that they did not use reason to get into. And I wouldn't care, except for the fact that so much is at stake here.

" you cannot use reason to coax someone out of a position that they did not use reason to get into. "

I had a fascinating exchange yesterday with justshutupandtakeit about the FR bloodbath that occurred around the Schaivo thing. We were on opposite sides, but I think we have now agreed that too many were so emotionally invested (on both sides) that all discussions were based almost solely on emotion. Everybody just talked past one another. Wounds were opened and re-opened, and rifts were made that, for some, have not healed to this day.

It's not too late on immigration - yes, we are all entrenched in our positions, but except for a few, this is still an abstract argument. Yes, middle TN is absolutely overrun with illegals, but I have yet to be a victim of illegal alien crime, or have an auto accident with an uninsured illegal, or lose a job to one. Not that these things aren't important, but it means I can discuss it dispassionately. That was impossible with Schaivo (for both sides).

I daresay most folks are like me - they see ilegals every day, but they don't have an burning hatred based on a personal victimhood at the hands of illegals (I know there have been a few here, but their number is very small).

Therefore, I still have hope that we can discuss this rationally, if we can get past the "personality" and "clique" issues many seem to be having here.

Therefore, I still have hope that we can discuss this rationally, if we can get past the "personality" and "clique" issues many seem to be having here.

And I had a long exchange with justshutupandtakeit on this thread over this particular issue. Every time he had to make a choice as to whether to say that Bush just might be on the wrong side of this issue, for the reasons I stated above, he backed away from doing such - either yes or no. And my position is hardly extreme, xenophobic or emotional - it is backed by history, current polls and the reality of what just happened in the Senate, along with Bush's past trangressions where he allied with Dems and RINOs to pass agenda items, such as his medicare fiasco.

The Dubai ports deal was the previous major FR blowup, and although I initially was against it, I went to neutral after I got over Bush's quick veto threat that set off my initial concerns. I was willing to listen to the other side and adjusted my views accordingly. With Miers, I initially defended her from the more heinous personal attacks, and gave her a chance until enough evidence came forth that she was clearly not a good choice. So I have been on both sides and shifted my opinions as the debate went forward and more information became available. I am hardly a single issue Bush-bashing border bot - if you ask Spiff, I was more neutral on this issue years ago.

But I simply do not see Bush or his hard-core supporters on FR making ANY kind of reasoned argument as to why Bush should not table the guest worker proposal. Which is why I am of the opinion that this is not a reasoned debate any longer, and has descended into the purely political, with all the nastyness such typically entails. It is impossible to debate someone who will hold a position just because it is Bush's position.

"It is impossible to debate someone who will hold a position just because it is Bush's position."

It is impossible to DEBATE, yes, but it is still not impossible to REASON with them. Reasoning with an adversary does not perforce require teacups and "Thank yous". Mutally Assured Destruction was a very threatening but effective form of mutual reasoning between two polar opposites - the USSR and the USA - during the Cold War. On the micro-level, a robber who points a gun at a convenience store clerk and says: "Give me all the cash in the drawer or you're a dead man" is reasoning with the clerk. It's reasoning of the most brutish sort, but the "OR" in that threat presents the clerk with a tableau of options, and informs the clerk (honestly or not) that the criminal does not wish to shoot him, but WILL if he is not given what he wants. We are entitled to be offended by the criminal's coercive technique, but it IS reason.
Unreason would be walking in and blowing the clerk away from behind, then taking the money.

It may be true that the political discourse between "BushBots" and "BorderBots" has degenerated to M.A.D., or to a stick-up (depending who you ask), but if that's the case, a reasoned discourse can still be carried out in the presence of mutual threat.

The facts are these: the Republicans are divided, over the border issue, and the consequences of that division look likely to be the loss of Congress. Everybody has heard the reasoned arguments, but the trenchlines remain where they are. So, it's a matter of getting the threat paradigm right.

If it's M.A.D., then the best rational outcome is status quo, because neither side will have made any advances. That assumes that the BorderBots won't stay home or vote against Republicans even over status quo, because status quo isn't acceptable to enough of them.

If that's the case, then we're in a stick-up, and the BorderBots have the gun. They can kill the Party in the Fall, and don't lose any more than they already have lost, but everybody else loses big time. If it's a stick-up, the rational thing to do if you've got no weapon pointing back is to hand over your wallet and rely on future law enforcement efforts to get the culprit. Standing unarmed and fighting with the man with the gun is a good way to get dead in a hurry, unless you are certain that the gun is unloaded or the fellow holding it won't pull the trigger.

It would help if BorderBots explained themselves more clearly. WHAT will they accept?

I think that if there is a clear and unambiguous proclamation of a FENCE the WHOLE LENGTH of the border and construction is started immediately, they will come out and vote in November to protect their gains. If the guest-worker lobby will not go along, then a guest worker program can be approved, not to begin until the sea-to-sea fence is completed. That way the two things are linked, and there is a strong incentive to get the whole fence up as fast as possible.

You are so right. Thanks for having the guts to post this.

One of the most inspiring stories about Bush for me comes from the former White House aide and speech writer David Frum’s book “The Right Man”

On the day Bush visited the sight of the fallen twin towers where he stood atop the rubble with the bull horn. You remember it. Prior to his arrival at the tower rubble this scene played out……

Now quoting from the book:

Giuliani and Governor George Pataki met Bush at McGuire Air Force Base, south of Princeton, New Jersey. They helicoptered to the Wall Street heliport on the East River, then drove in a tightly guarded motorcade around the bottom of the island to ground zero. All along the short route, rescue workers, police, firefighters, and medics cheered wildly, waved flags, chanted “USA! USA!” Guilani pointed out the window of the Limousine at the shouting crowed. “You see those people cheering you?” he asked Bush. “Not one of them voted for you.”
Unquote (The Right Man, by David Frum, pg 139)

That is the Bush I miss and want back. The Bush who threw a perfect pitch right down the middle at Yankee Stadium in opening game 3 of the 2001 World Series. Who at a time when TV stand-up comics were depicting him as a party-hearty frat boy interested in only “huntin and executin”, Bush came out and proved to the World that he had so much charm, great skill, toughness, compassion and so much promise. This is the Bush we in this “New Conservative Majority” once rallied around. It is the Democrats strategy to take this one issue, illegal immigration, and use it to divide our party, and it is working in spades and they are smelling victory in November. If we don’t pull together and rally around Bush and our Party soon I can promise you Nancy Pelosi will be the next speaker of the House and impeachment proceedings against Bush will be in her agenda.

When I spent the last weeks of my Dad’s life by his side in the hospice I looked at him intently and noticed that this once strong, powerful, playful, compassionate man was reduced to a frail withering shell that barely new I was in the room. I wanted so much to shake him and say Dad it’s me get up, time to play ball. But I knew I couldn’t.

Well I kind of feel the same way about Bush, except he can be shaken awake. But that’s not going to happen with all the infighting going on over this one issue. Its time we start to recognize his accomplishments, tax cuts, judge appointments, Saddam out of power, Bin Laden on the run with most of his top lieutenants dead, a booming economy, fantastic employment numbers, and that he is finally listing to us and plans are in place to select a contractor to start building a wall on the most porous areas of the border.

Now it’s our turn. Time for us to send the message loud and clear to Pelosi that she will not be getting the Speaker of the House job, because the Republicans are coming to the polls in November united. We need to be saying in unison, “Bush get up, we are here and we want to play ball – will ya throw another one right down the middle for us?”

It is impossible to DEBATE, yes, but it is still not impossible to REASON with them.

I've tried reasoning as well. The responses to that have ranged from "Dont post to me any more" to "You want the Dems to win!" to a simple refusal to even answer a yes/no question when asked if Bush forming a coalition with Dems to get his immigration agenda passed might indicate he is not on the right side of this issue, given the railing against Dems the same people are doing.

So I have good cause to have come to the conclusion that most of those supporting Bush on this issue are not doing such from a position of reason, because they have almost entirely, with a few exceptions, failed to engage in reason, and instead have indulged in the classic shoutdown/blockout manuevers folks engage in when they do not wish to be bothered by those annoying facts.

It would help if BorderBots explained themselves more clearly. WHAT will they accept?

I don't think we can explain the core position any more clearly than we have so far. Border Security and Enforcement First. Deal with those already here second. Any changes dealing with the existing illegal population are doomed to failure until we can have some decent control over our borders.

Hey Dog. It's been a long time since I last directed a post your way. Seems like your "fishing" has pulled up more than a few bottom feeders.

Anyway, I too support President Bush. I am always amazed at how people can criticize with so little thought. And many of the critics have likely never embraced a leadership role in any way..... "Coach a 13-14 year-old little league team??? No way! I could never put up with the parents!"..... Now, try being President of the United States. Very very few, if any of us, can imagine the complexities of it. And then, try being THIS President! Lunatic, ghost-like evil is bent on our apocalyptic distruction. The media is like a pack of mongrel dogs ready to eat you alive. The opposition party would rather undermine your authority than to show any support - even at the peril of the nation's security. Many of your "supporters" have little or no nerve. And all the while, demographics are changing so rapidly, that any misstep is hammered and ridiculed relentlessly and incessantly. We simply can not know the calculations and riddles he must confront.

It seems to me that the great leaders of history disregarded much of the criticism leveled by their contemporaries. Each one can be debated, but Lincoln, Reagan, Churchill among others come to mind. They relied on their core beliefs and were comfortable knowing that, with time, history would pass a more (if not perfect) objective judgment. I think President Bush is in this category. He knew the enormity of risk involved with Iraq and Afghanistan. But yet, he followed and is following his compass. He knows the minefield that immigration reform poses - and its risks. He knows that to misstep is to cede control to the Democrats via the Hispanic and minority vote - resulting in a much more dire circumstance, one that will last for generations possibly. But yet, he is maintaining his bearing, it seems to me. From my very narrow, parochial view, it is easy to disagree and criticize him. But, at the end of the day, I thank God he is OUR President.

Thanks for the thread and "keep fishin'".

As you disingenuously know it is far to early for President Bush to enter the discussions on a bill that has not even gone to committee. It is their job to work out the minutia even on a disaster like this bill. What do you expect from the DemonRat controlled Senate.

You only enjoy the chance to attack President Bush from your unadulterated hatred of the man. Now answer me this Mr want to discuss, how do you replace the 12 million low wage workers once they are deported?? Since you and your gang have all the answers answer that one.

I have asked that questions 20 times and yet to get a realistic answer. So surprise me.

Pray for W and Our Troops

If that's the case, then don't get too angry.
Keep stating your position, without rancor, and without getting drawn into personal contests of wills with other people.

If someone starts staring you down, respond with humor. If they go nuts on you, respond with more humor.
Essentially, if you've become a rock under some other guy's collar but you have said nothing to cause personal expense, you're dealing with a hothead and you can have a great deal of dry fun at his expense. But don't YOU get sucked into a cyberpissing contest, because then you end up looking like brawling drunks.

To put it yet another way, if somebody shows you his chain, it's your moral duty to YANK IT for your own amusement. Tossing your own chain out there for him to yank back is a mistake.

You know what you think, and you know why.
Don't be afraid to state it, clearly, and relentlessly. Never allow yourself to be shouted down by the peanut gallery. Stand there like a stone wall and repeat yourself, and occasionally yank the chain of someone who desperately needs it, but don't get down in the mud and start wrasslin' with a pig. You just get tired and sooner or later figure out that the pig enjoys it.

So, make up your mind about how you're going to vote and contribute - the CONCRETE steps you'll take. And then use FR to ventilate your opinions clearly and politely.

And if once in awhile you want to be the pig in the wrasslin' contest with some psychopath who's stalking you, just remember that the pig in that fight is supposed to have fun.

"Time for us to send the message loud and clear to Pelosi that she will not be getting the Speaker of the House job, because the Republicans are coming to the polls in November united."

Navy, we can't do that yet.
Maybe we'll be able to, but we can't pretend that we're united when we're not.

The President is calling for guest worker and only a partial fence.
Border Conservatives' bottom line is no guest worker until there is a full fence and enforcement of the existing law.

These positions are as incompatible as raising taxes and being for tax cuts. They're opposed, and until a compromise is worked out, there isn't unity, and Republicans are not all going to go to the polls. As it is, a lot of disgusted BorderBots are going to stay home. The pot needs to be made a lot sweeter for them, because the current plan gives them nothing but the back of the hand.

They CAN'T get behind that any more than tax hawks who voted on "Read my lips: No new taxes!" could get behind George Bush 41's tax hikes.

We could indeed get unity back, but the President/Senate guest worker side has got to give something much more concrete to the House/BorderBot side.

Otherwise it'll be Speaker Pelosi as you fear, or more likely, somebody more serious the Democrats put up as speaker when they realize they're actually going to have power.

As you disingenuously know it is far to early for President Bush to enter the discussions on a bill that has not even gone to committee.

Oh, that's rich. Bush had no problem issuing a veto threat over the Dubai ports deal. Or threatening to veto a recent spending bill if it went over a certain amoun, before the Senate passed it.

So much for your latest attack.

You only enjoy the chance to attack President Bush from your unadulterated hatred of the man.

BUSH HATER! BUSH HATER! BUSH HATER!

Gee, where have I heard this routine before? Oh, I remember!

CLINTON HATER! CLINTON HATER! CLINTON HATER!

I do not hate Bush. I voted for him twice. I have supported him on many issues, but disagree with him when he does not act in a conservative manner, in areas such as spending and Medicare.

Your talk of "hate" is just as pathetic as the Clintonistas when theY used the exact same tactic in place of debate - and for the exact same reasons - because you have nothing else left in your arsenal.

Now answer me this Mr want to discuss, how do you replace the 12 million low wage workers once they are deported??

And here is my answer. We secure the borders first. The 12 million will mostly be unaffected. Once the borders are secured, we figure out what to do with the 12 million and whether we need a guest worker program or increased immigration.

I have answered the question. But you cannot let go of you robotic attack mentality to have reasoned discussion of this.

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.