Posted on 01/25/2002 9:38:23 PM PST by Jim Robinson
I do not know how to put this nicely, in the spirit of non-bashing--but are you hitting the booze a little early? I still DK what you are talking about. Anyone else? Anyone? Anyone? Can you tell me where this FReeper is coming from?
Your personal attack speaks alot about you and nothing about me. It's ironic that you would do it on a thread that was started by the owner of this forum who specifically does not want such personal attacks.
Indeed it is. But it makes you wonder why some posters come here, doesn't it? No flames. I think you know what I mean. Whenever I hear one of them trash conservatives, I am so tempted to ask them, "Since this is a conservative forum, what are you doing here since you are not a conservative?"
But I always digress.
I believe you mean "Republican elected leaders".
I think there is no question about that. I have seen some of the discussion at the DU. They are obsessed with this site. While we have the occasional regular thread about them, I have yet to visit the DU without seeing at least one and usualy more than one thread with FReeper in the title, and even when their threads don't use FR in the title there seldom appears to be a thread over there on which this site and us don't come up frequently. In fact, I'm quite sure if they get wind of this thread we'll probably be seeing a new flurry of "activity" from lefty land.
Basically. Here's my take...
The cowardice and betrayal of certain East of the Mississippi Republicans (especially Kemp and Bennett) late in the '94 campaign provided the fulcrum the Dems and the media needed to make the anti-illegal = anti-immigrant = racist Republicans equation stick... but barely.
All racial demographics, Black, White, and Asian, voted for #187 by the expected 2 to 1 margins. Latinos had favored #187 by roughly a 55 to 45 margin until about 10 days before the election, when the propaganda juggernaut was unleashed. This was just enough to cause Latino support to dip slightly below 50%.
And that, my friend, is the cornerstone of the ongoing media myth that a tough stance on illegal immigration is a loser at the ballot box. That's an indisputable lie. Poll numbers continue show that American opinion on the matter is about the same now as it was in '94. The problem is cowardly Republican candidates unwilling to press the advantage, thereby allowing themselves to be smeared as racist.
That cowardice has marred statewide Republican Campaigns in '98 and 2000, and served to get us Gray Davis and a Democrat lock on the state legislature... and that kept #187 from getting out of California to consideration by the Supreme Court.
I believe that's one of the biggest problems we have around here -- those of you who keep telling the rest of us we're not conservatives.
Hmmm. . . I wonder who of what ilk just loves to post things like this. Any ideas?
I would say post a legitimate article from a credible CONSERVATIVE site to that effect. As I did in regards to Buchanan. It is a FACT that he was in league with a Marxist, Lenora Fulani. It is also a fact that by running he took votes away from President Bush, a mere 8 years after Perot demolished Bush 41's chances of reelection.
Could have led to President Gore, a terrifying thought.
Fair enough, but I have aired my concerns in the open forum. In fact, I've posted some of the more critical threads on Bush's immigration policies, and several of them have reached 400 or 500 posts.Since Free Republic is a barometer of the mood of the Republican electorate, and we know it's lurked on by many in power or their staffs, aren't we doing a service to the conservative cause be being open about these serious concerns?
If the bally-hooed "Latino outreach" is seen as ethnic pandering (and I see it that way), and such pandering threatens to cost Republican votes in upcoming elections (as it does mine), whether through third-party defections or poor turnout, don't we want that known?
Well, the Fox News Channel promotes itself as "Fair and Balanced." Therefore, it cannot be just conservative points of view. I believe it does a fair job of representing both sides, yet other talking-heads dub Fox News as "conservative." A bit disingenuous, doncha think?
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.