Posted on 06/10/2007 11:29:23 PM PDT by goldstategop
"DRIP on all politicians."
That's the advice of my buddy and top, long-time, now retired, San Francisco talk host, Jim Eason. He said it for years, never changing his opinion.
DRIP = "Don't Return Incumbent Politicians," – one term, and they're out. I'm there.
In fact, I'm hard pressed to keep my language decent after watching people elected to protect this country work so hard to sell us out by trying to push through the deceptively named Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.
No matter how it's painted, the proposed law is amnesty for people who came here illegally and who would, with the stroke of the president's pen, be declared legal with all the benefits.
If that weren't bad enough, American citizens who disagreed – REAL citizens who elected those individuals in Congress – were on the receiving end of insults from those same politicians, on both sides of the aisle, including – astonishingly – the president himself.
George Bush is the luckiest guy in Washington. As a lame duck, he's got nothing to lose by pushing the immigration bill, so he thinks he can get away with saying people who oppose it "don't want to do what's right for America" – essentially calling them unpatriotic, xenophobic racists!
Considering most of the opposition is from his own party, such statements are naïve, stubborn or incredibly stupid.
To have my President say that because I disagree with him I'm unpatriotic is insulting and unacceptable.
Other Republicans jumped on the insult bandwagon, not the least of which was South Carolina's Sen. Lindsey Graham, who said the elected elite will tell the "bigots to shut up."
Those "bigots" are American citizens who happen to disagree with the proposed immigration law because they don't believe it is what this country needs.
Maybe it's something in the Washington water or swamp gas in the air, but it's clear the elected elite are on a different trajectory than the average American.
So, despite Mr. Bush's stubbornness in the face of mounting, national opposition and despite the attitude of Sen. Ted Kennedy (main sponsor of the bill) and his ilk that the bill must be passed, the people made themselves heard and then some!
They didn't have to depend on snail mail and biased newspapers and television. People have faxes, e-mail, talk radio, the Internet, cable television and more!
Politicians were stunned that the details of the law, which most of them never even read, were available to people who didn't like it and made their opinions heard. Phones and faxes and e-mails were inundated.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) complained that people were using the word "amnesty" for the bill; she insists it isn't. She told Associated Press, "I've listened to talk show hosts drumming up the opposition by using this word 'amnesty' over and over and over again."
She said in her 15 years in the Senate, "I've never received more hate, or more racist, phone calls and threats."
See, those talk radio listeners are hateful, threatening racists.
By the way Dianne, DRIP on you – your 15 years are nine years too many.
On the GOP side, Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott said he supported the bill even though he disliked many aspects of it. "I am getting calls, but I would say to my constituents: Do you have no faith in me after 35 years that I am just going to buy a pig in a poke here or be for something that is bad?"
Actually, Trent, yes, we do think that – and DRIP on you too; 35 years are 29 too many.
People made themselves heard and also put their money where their mouths were – or rather, didn't put their money! Contributions to the Republican National Committee dropped so precipitously that all telephone solicitors were fired.
Voters in every state were/are furious at what they consider a sellout of the country, the party and conservative principles.
In the days of the Old Media, politicians could have pushed this through before anyone knew about it. By the time it was figured out, it was too late. The Kennedy-sponsored 1965 Immigration Reform Act was sold as benign, but it destroyed our immigration system and continues to destroy this country.
The current proposal is worse and would change this country forever. But times are different, and while the D.C. old timers live in their bubble, real life broke through. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pushed a vote last Thursday to end debate and get the bill passed. He lost, stunningly.
Sen. Ted Kennedy declared, "We're not giving up the game." Republican John McCain, who supported the bill, was so upset, he wouldn't even talk to reporters.
Reid blamed the president for not getting the GOP together to support what has been Bush's primary, domestic policy since his first election.
Reid doesn't understand that Republicans don't march in lock step, follow the leader, as do Democrats. Republicans have the fatal flaw of "thinking for themselves," not following talking points or buying the party-line, simply "because".
Thursday's vote killed the bill, but the president wants Reid to try again. Bush meets with GOP senators tomorrow to try to change minds.
What was it I said … naïve, stubborn or incredibly stupid? Yes, all of that.
DRIP on all of them! Immigration changes the face of the '08 elections and all incumbents should find themselves fighting for their political lives.
DRIP on 'em all.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I used to love listening to Jim Eason when I was growing up, 30 years ago in the Bay Area. He was one hell of a broadcaster — easygoing yet smart and substantive, with a great voice. But this DRIP idea, which I remember from those days, makes little sense. If you have a Republican congressman, not returning him is very likely to be a bad idea, no matter what, unless you can beat him in a primary.
Good idea. Let’s push for them to get out of office.
Just say NO to Amnesty!! Keep calling!! It’s NOT OVER!!
U.S. Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121
U.S. House switchboard: (202) 225-3121
White House comments: (202) 456-1111
Find your House Rep.: http://www.house.gov/writerep
Find your US Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
The brutal fact is that the key to great wealth today is to get elected to high public office.
Teddy Kennedy has been in Congress over 44 years. If that doesn’t make you consider term limits, nothing will.
We don’t need people like Kennedy, Feinstein, Spector or anyone else who stays in Office so long they have a power base stronger than their own State.
I say two terms and then yer out. That way we get people who lived and worked as taxpayers in the State, know how their neighbors and co workers thinks, have read the local papers for years, not just the WP, WT, WSJ or NYT to see how the nation is doing.
There’s more good reasons for term limits than there is bad ones.
DRIP = “Don’t Return Incumbent Politicians,” – two terms, and they’re out.
THe typical American voter is too stupid to even know what term limits means.
Most vote for a name with a particular letter behind it that they recognize from a street corner sign. Sadly.
So, a new Rat is better than an Republican who’s been in more than two terms? That makes ZERO sense.
I favor term limits, but only if they apply to all states’ senators and congressmen. I’m glad federal term limits were tossed out by the Supreme Court (although I disagreed with the ruling as a constitutional matter). Only with a constitutional amendment requiring term limits nationally will we have a level playing field. Otherwise, conservative states would have term limits and liberal states wouldn’t. Similarly, if the GOP or its voters adopt term limits as a de facto policy, it’s unliateral disarmament — the Rat senators and congressman will have a seniority advantage and the Republicans will be babes in the woods.
I would rather have a RAT that leans to the Right than a RINO that is a Communist.
Yeah, but here’s the problem: RINOs aren’t communists and are rarely socialists. Many Rats are socialists and some are pro-communist. There are very few Rats who “lean to the right.” So you’re setting up what’s called a false dilemma, or in street talk, it’s BS.
Here’s another problem. A RINO will almost always vote for a Republican speaker and will tend to respond, occasionally, to Republican party pressures. A Rat, even if he or she is somewhat moderate, will response to Democratic party pressures.
I would rather have someone in office who I know that I have to fight 24/7 than a sorry sob like Kyle or McCain that lies in your face then stabs you in the back. Bloomberg is going to be another great RINO if he ever make it to DC.
I have never yet heard a woman say, “He only cheats on me once a month” and is satified with that. Anytime we re-elect a RINO, we deserve it every time he cheats on us.
Politics isn’t marriage. If you try to understand things through ridiculous analogies, you’ll never be anything but confused.
Yeah, you would. But most of us wouldn’t. See, what matters isn’t our personal egos or our sense of excitment. What matters is what’s good for the country. Big difference.
Yeah, you would. But most of us wouldn’t. See, what matters isn’t our personal egos or our sense of excitement. What matters is what’s good for the country. Big difference.
As I have said before...........
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1848302/posts?page=151#151
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.