Freeper Grassroots Movement to Re-Elect Bush

July 24, 2003 | nwrep

[nwrep]

I want to kick off a grass-roots movement to educate and inform discerning Democrats about the real nature of their party and am soliciting suggestions from Freepers. The reasons I am doing this are several, as listed below:

* I have several conservative Democrat friends who have always voted D, but who disagree with the stance of their party on issues like AA, tax-cuts, and regulations.

* These people do not understand that regardless of the "moderate" local Dem candidate they vote for, the party agenda is driven in Congress by an extremely liberal faction of the party.

* Case in point #1: I alerted one friend to Rep. Rangel's remarks about the death of Hussein's sons yesterday (Rangel said it was "illegal" for the US to kill them). The friend said he disagreed with Rangel, and the majority of the Dems would similarly disagree with the Congressman. I asked this friend if he knew who Rangel was. He had never heard of him. I informed him coolly that if the Dem regain the House, Rangel would become the Chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Cte., where all spending bills originate, and that he is one of the most influential members of his party in the House. The friend was shocked.

* Case in point #2: I asked another Dem friend what he thought of Kerry. He gave me a canned response about his Vietnam service, etc. I then asked him if he knew about his anti-Vietnam war stance. He said he did not, but that his parents (lifelong Dem voters like himself) hated Jane Fonda and everything she stood for. I then forwarded him the NewsMax expose of Kerr's Vietnam stance, his anti-war book, his rallies with Fonda and Ramsey Clark, and his statement to the US Senate in 1971. After reading all that, he said he was disgusted, and would forward it to his mother. He conceded that if Kerry were to be the nominee, he would vote for Bush.

* The problem is that these Dem voters are blissfully unaware of the voting records of their candidates and representatives. All they go by are finely crafted campaign statements issued during the last few weeks before the election where they pay homage to FDR, Truman and JFK. As a result, these dopey Dem voters (like my friends and their parents) continue voting for these candidates thinking they are voting for FDR/JFK-like candidates.

We need to educate these people and keep them as well informed as we Freepers are about the real day to day legislative agenda of the Rat Party. We need to highlight how they continue to vote against the best interest of these conservative, patriotic Democrats (like my friends) and how they continue to display hypocrisy by constantly changing their stance on major issues.

How do we do this?

[The Coopster]

Of course illegal immigration is a problem. Nice try, trying to change the subject. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Please allow me to quote another here, who said it more succinctly than I can:

If you feel that some issue of your's is being neglected, you need to fight.. but within the system. You need to fight within the Republican Party. Voting for a third party is masturbatory. It makes you feel good but unless they have a real shot at winning, it does little else. It doesn't change a damn thing. There has NEVER been a viable third party in the U.S.A. Do I think the Republicans are always right? Do I agree with what they do all the time? Nope, but I try to fight my battles within the party and in the primaries. Now, there are only two choices. George Bush and whomever the Sociocrats put up. As a conservative, a vote for no one or a third party (the same thing as no one) is a vote AGAINST freedom. You are voting to have all your children taken from you. We are locked in a war right now, a war of ideas. In this country there are two sides. Pick a side and fight your battles within in. Whom are you closer to, the Republicans or the Democrats? Choose.

How big a part does GW play? I wasn't aware that the President introduced bills. Or is it that he must tell people to introduce bills? Do you see where I'm going with this? I understand that this is your litmus issue. But try to operate with a little common sense. The system is set up so that you let your voices be heard to your representatives, who then introduce bills. Once the bills pass the house and senate, it's THEN the President's responsibility to sign or not sign the bill into law. Maybe I'm being remedial, but your posts indicate that you don't understand the process. If your representatives aren't doing their job, then THAT's where you start. Do something productive, Eeyore, instead of sitting around here pissing and moaning.

[The Coopster]

Bravo, Luis. Muy bien!

[rocky88]

I'm looking forward to the GOP's commercials with Howard Dean stating that (and I paraphrase...) America should be a second-rate power in the world! Joe Lunchbox Democrat with the flag sticker on his car will NEVER vote for Dean in this post-9/11 world... Blue-collar democrats like the fact that America is a superpower for the same reason they like Yankee games - they want to root for the team that WINS. (Too bad the blue-collar democrats' party has been hijacked by the far left commies..their loss, our gain!)

[Sabertooth]

Ill advised politically, or ill-advised from a conservative ideological viewpoint?

Both, as well as from the standpoint of making best use of his Constitutional authority.

Politically, what Bush is doing is brilliant. No one can paint him as an obstructionist, and the ball is constantly put back in Congress' court.

There is far too much paint-o-phobia in this forum. Phantasms of Boogy-Democrats are conjured to portray every retreat as a victory over largely non-existent foes.

Fear of what mean things the Democrats might say is currently the single biggest obstacle to advancing a conservative agenda

Moreover, they would use his veto as evidence that he had lost control of his Republican-majority Congress. They'd paint him as out of touch with his own Party.

More of the same hand-wringing, I'm afraid.

Initiatives ought to be seized, and if the President needs to whip his own party into line, or stare them down with a veto, that hardly reflects poorly on him as a politician or a statesman.

On the other hand, the perception of being afraid to veto any bill isn't one of the President's strengths, nor can it ever be so.

Now granted, I'd like to see less money spent by Washington A.C. / D.C., but the level of spending is manageable, and it is buying us every conservative thing that we want

The prescription drug swindle, restrictions on free speech in elections, widespread acceptance of the matricular consul cards for Illegals, and a resolute unwillingness on the part of President Bush to effectively enforce our immigration laws are just a few of the things this he stands for that are not conservative.

Moreover, in a nation so evenly split ideologically, getting Conservative victories passed through Congress is going to come at some not-so-cheap price.

Agreed. "Taking the Democrats issues away" by giving them incremental advances of their agenda is not cheap.

C'mon, there is another way, and it's not the path of least resistance. There are times when fear should be cast aside and advantages should be pressed.

We were told with the "Take back the Senate!" campaign of 2002 that with a Senate majority we could get our agenda passed. Now the Democrats have filibustered, and the Republicans have not bludgeoned them into submission by making them filibuster 24/7, week in and week out. We are stymied by the filibuster. Now we need a "Filibuster-proof supermajority" in 2004. But because of the RINOs in the northeast, though, you can just bet we're gonna need a "Filibuster proof super-duper-majority" in 2006. There's always one excuse or another for failures of will against the Democrats and liberalism. Oh, and send money to the campaign, will you?

The Democrats are bereft not only of ideas, but also of character. They are ripe to be broken. Unfortunately, most of our Republican politicians lack the fire in the belly to take the fight directly to them.

[nwrep]

Well, thank you all for your responses. Obviously there are people here who have something against Bush.

I am dismayed by these so called conservatives who are oblivious to politics and cannot give credit to Bush for the dozen or so *HUGE* things he has done for conservatives, starting with putting Ashcroft in, rejecting Kyoto, ICC, ABM, re-instating Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico policy, and giving us tax cuts and increases in defense spending for the first time in a long time.

The people here who are ticked off at Bush for not paying attention to the unemployment situation are apparently incapable of writing a professional letter to the White House pointing their concerns out and giving specific suggestions. No, that would be too constructive. Instead, they would much rather vent, and make gratuitous comparisons between Bush and Nazi Germany!!

When I started this thread, I bemoaned the lack of political knowledge, including voting records of their party leaders, among my Democrat friends. I had hoped to get suggestions here to convey to them the superiority of the Republican party in their policy stances. Apparently, we need to do some convincing among our own.

But that should not stop us from discussing these issues. Both of these tasks can be pursued in parallel.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

I equate that to be basically the same circumstances as what people fleeing other nations are facing - so either it was the smart thing to do, or it was the cowardly thing to do. Wonder what he'd say it is?

I don't think we're going to find out. It looks as though he may have lived up to his name.

P.S. Hey Chad? I have something to tell you. You're Mohawk and Micmac. I thought - since you have all that hair - that maybe you didn't know. ; )

Signed,
PalefaceDaughterOfAPalefaceIwoJimaVet

[Chad Fairbanks]

Cool! I've been told I'm Mohawk and MicMac... ;0)

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Very cool. If I can get someone to tell me I'm part Chippewa, will I be, or doesn't it work that way? : )

[Chad Fairbanks]

It doesn't work that way. Sorry... ;0)

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

[visualops]

What I've done with a co-worker is to bring up various subjects that mean something personally. People understand when you're talking about taxes or kids & school etc, or whatever their focus may be. Just enough to get my point across but not enough to nag or preach, I've shown her that the Dems don't address her concerns, or work against them.

[sarasmom]

Are you pretending to be obtuse?
People who pay a moderate degree of attention to "politics" tend to be a bit more informed than the standard Democrat base.
We elect Presidents, not bow down to kings, in the USA.
I may very well end up having to vote a second time for GWB for POTUS, as the lessor of two evils.
Please stop insulting my intelligence by suggesting that I should be honored to have the opportunity to vote for a man who is proudly in opposition to everything I would choose for a leader, excepting a willingness to go to war,when needed, and a larger degree of personal integrity than Clinton.!!!
It seems I trust in GWBs words more than the BBots.

[Southack]

"The Democrats are bereft not only of ideas, but also of character. They are ripe to be broken. Unfortunately, most of our Republican politicians lack the fire in the belly to take the fight directly to them."

The ban on Partial Birth Abortions was most certainly taking the fight directly to the Democrats, as was demanding that the Senate vote on war with Iraq back in November, and as has been nominating Bill Pryor to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

But besides the full frontal assault, Bush is also enganging in the oblique attack. Oh, we're killing Kyoto, he says, but we'll put up another plan for that sort of thing...one day...after several studies have been done.

Oh, and that prescription drug bill, well, you see we need to be able to privatize all of Medicare one day guys, Bush says.

That Education Bill?! "Surely if we give you Democrats all of this Educational money, you won't mind if we actually test the teachers, insure that the kids can read, and close down the really bad inner city schools that have essentially failed our kids," Bush notes. And so obliquely, Bush gains what would not have passed had he taken the Democrats on headfirst with that issue. Heck, even Ted Kennedy signed on to it! Such is a thing of beauty, and criticizing this sort of indirect win is like criticizing Washington's victory at Yorktown.

In fact, what Bush has done is to win an enormous number of Conservative victories (e.g. killing the ABM treaty, killing Kyoto, two tax cuts, military pay raises, partial birth abortion ban forthcoming, etc.), all without the press conceding that Bush is a one-man juggernaut.

Yes, the Democrats are ripe to be broken, but you don't break them with political brute force; that would actually cause them to set aside their differences and rally together.

Instead, you beat them by turning one against the other. Lieberman and Dean are critizing each other over their Iraqi War stances, for instance. Black Democrat "leaders" are asking why there are no Blacks in DNC leadership positions, especially compared to the high-level appointments being made in the Bush administration. Further, Black inner-city parents want school choice vouchers, while the Democratic-leaning teachers unions are dead set against them. Unions are wanting the jobs that come with drilling in the ANWR, and they are fighting against the Democratic Party enviro-nazis who want no such thing at all.

And then there is the money. Bush can easily raise millions; in contrast, the Democrats have to scrape and hustle for every buck. Moreover, the timing is favorable for Republicans. The Democrats have more vulnerable Senate seats up for re-election in 2004, plus the nationwide redistricting strongly favors the Republicans expanding their lead in the House. And the Democrats went into hock in the 2002 elections, doing really dumb things such as getting one Florida teachers' union to mortgage its headquarters building for $1.8 million to buy 30 seconds worth of pro-Democratic TV time.

Nor will it benefit Democrats financially to have to pay for Gray Davis and perhaps even another national Democrat to run in the 2003 recall election in California.

And on top of all of that, McAuliffe squandered the money that was supposed to be spent building the great DNC donor database, as well as wasted precisou DNC funds on teh DNC headquarters building.

So why give the Democrats an excuse to circle their wagons? Why take them on headfirst at every chance to force them to put aside their own internal differences?

Surely it makes more political sense to keep taking the oblique, non-direct high ground, blissfully letting the Democrats continue their fratricide.

[nwrep]

Are you pretending to be obtuse?

I am not, and I did not mean to give that impression. I was suggesting that people harshly critical of Bush, to the point of refusing to vote for him for not adhering 100% to the conservative canon, in the secure knowledge that such inaction may lead to a rat being elected in a close election, should graciously give him some credit for making the best of a difficult situation.

Secondly, while I concur that we do not bow down to Kings, I would suggest that characterization of a President as a "leader" is also misleading, albeit correct in a loose sense.

Bush is supposed to be our representative in the Executive Branch, reflecting the positions and views held by the vast majority of the people who elected him, such as are consistent with the Constitution. When you say "leader", I imagine strong, principled personalities who are unwavering in their commitment to a cause, regardless of beliefs or ideologies held by their populations. Such a sweeping prerogative is permissible to the Executive Branch only in matters of foreign policy and war. For everything else, there is compromise and, unfortunately or fortunately, a deference to public wants and needs.

For example, the vast majority of the people today, and even conservative Republicans I know from Texas, no less, are convinced of the need for an expansion in Health care benefits for all, regardless of the consitutionality of such a position. It does not matter what hard core conservatives like nwrep, and Sabertooth, and samuel_adams and sarasmom want, if the majority of the people want it, they will vote for whoever gives it to them. Hence the compromise on such things as prescription drug coverage and education.

I am suggesting that the fault ultimately lies with the people, and this is the area we should address, by means of educating them.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Hey!

I just got a call from the Bureau of Indian Affairs!

Someone get a hold of Fenimore Cooper!

He better make that "The Next To The Last Mohican".

[MissAmericanPie]

Good grief you are lazy. Does the official website of the U.S. State Dept qualify with you, lazy bones? If you have the energy go to their site and type in FTAA in their search engine.

On the one hand you will be told that FTAA is a cornerstone of the Bush Administration, (paraphrasing). On the other hand you will be told that it is only a draft being hammered out and never mind all the scary stuff Bush or some other President will be looking out for your best interest....in other words, nothing to see here, move on.

There is a link that refers you to the web address I gave you 20 meaningless posts ago. If you poke around you will find that the FTAA fully endorses and implements the U.N.'s "Special Rapporteur on Migration", in which the U.N. co-ops both the OAS resolution AF/RES.1775(XXXI.O/01) of June 5, 2001 entited, "The Human Rights of all Migrant Workers and Their Families", and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their Families" which is one signator away from being ratified. The FTAA wants the justice system of all member nations to "strengthen their courts ability to deal more effectively with xenaphobes".

Because I know you are far to fond of the state of blissful ignorance, I will post it for you here, but you will have to put up with my decoding of their snaky double speak by use of bold script and asides:

Ministers of Justice Ministers of Justice Weapons (CIFTA) Weapons (CIFTA) Anti-Corruption Anti-Corruption International Humanitarian Law International Humanitarian Law Home Home Charter of the OAS Charter of the OAS Inter-American Treaties Inter-American Treaties Resolutions & Declarations Resolutions & Declarations Publications Publications Español Español Français Français Portugais Portugais

AG/RES. 1898 (XXXII-O/02)

THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF ALL MIGRANT WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES

(Adopted at the fourth plenary session held on June 4, 2002)

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

HAVING SEEN:

The report by the Chair of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs on the human rights of all migrant workers and their families (CP/CAJP/SA.369/02 and CP/CAJP/SA.375/02); and

The Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to the General Assembly, especially the chapter on the situation of migrant workers and their families in the Hemisphere (CP/doc.3579/02);

CONSIDERING:

That the Heads of State and Government, gathered at the Third Summit of the Americas, in Quebec City, Canada, recognized the cultural and economic contributions made by migrants to receiving societies as well as to their communities of origin and pledged to ensure dignified, humane treatment with appropriate legal protections and to strengthen mechanisms for hemispheric cooperation to address the legitimate needs of migrants; The positive contributions often made by migrants, both to their countries of origin and to the receiving countries, including their gradual incorporation into the receiving societies, and the efforts made by some receiving countries to integrate migrants;

That the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man proclaims that all persons are equal before the law and have the rights and duties enshrined in that declaration, without distinction as to race, sex, language, creed, or any other factor;

That the American Convention on Human Rights recognizes that essential human rights are not derived from one’s being a national of a particular state but are based upon attributes of the human person, and therefore justify international protection; That the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families establishes the duty of states to ensure to all migrant workers and members of their families within their territory, or subject to their jurisdiction, the rights provided for in the Convention, without distinction as to sex, race, color, language, religion or belief; political opinion; national, ethnic, or social origin; nationality; age; economic position; property; marital status; birth; or other status; and

Advisory Opinion OC-16, issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, on the Right to Information on Consular Assistance within the Framework of the Guarantees of Due Process of Law, in cases of foreign nationals detained by authorities of a receiving state;

BEARING IN MIND FURTHER:

The exchange of views conducted, within the framework of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs, with representatives of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Director General of the Inter-American Agency for Cooperation and Development (IACD), in which, given the multidimensional aspects of the issues regarding migrant workers and their families and of the activities carried out by each of the aforementioned bodies, participants concluded that an interagency approach was needed and that it would be advisable to undertake joint programs of cooperation in this field;

That in the Strategic Plan for Partnership for Development 2002-2005, support for vulnerable groups such as migrant workers was identified as a priority in the implementation of policies and programs to facilitate access to the labor market and to improve working conditions;

That the Plan of Action of the Third Summit of the Americas provided for the establishment of an inter-American program within the OAS for the promotion and protection of the human rights of migrants, including migrant workers and their families, taking into account the activities of the IACHR and supporting the work of the IACHR Special Rapporteur for Migrant Workers and Their Families; and the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights; and

That many migrant workers and their families find themselves compelled to leave their places of origin in search of better opportunities; and

CONCERNED:

Over the vulnerable situation in which many migrant workers and their families find themselves because, inter alia, they move between countries; they do not live in their states of origin; they face difficulties as a result of cultural differences, especially with respect to language and customs; and their circumstances often lead to the breakdown of the family; and

Over the persistent obstacles that prevent many migrants and their families from fully exercising their human rights; and bearing in mind that migrants are often victims of mistreatment, discrimination, racism, and xenophobia,

RESOLVES:

1. To reaffirm that the principles and standards set forth in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and in the American Convention on Human Rights take on special importance with respect to protection of the rights of migrant workers and their families.

2. To reaffirm the duty of States Parties to the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations to comply with that Convention, including the right to communication between consular officers and their nationals, regardless of immigration status, in case of detention and the obligation of the states parties in whose territory the detention occurs to inform the foreign national of that right; and, in that connection, to call the attention of states to Advisory Opinion OC-16 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on this topic.

3. To urge member states to: a. Consider, as soon as possible and as appropriate, signing and ratifying, ratifying, or acceding to all inter-American human rights instruments, and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families; and

b. Take the necessary measures to guarantee the human rights of all migrants, including migrant workers and their families.

4. To instruct the Permanent Council to:

a. Continue supporting the work of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in this area and to take into account the efforts of other international organizations on behalf of migrant workers and their families, with a view to helping to improve their situation in the Hemisphere and, in particular and where applicable, the efforts of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and those of the International Organization for Migration (IOM);

b. Continue studying the adoption of measures to strengthen cooperation among states to address, with a comprehensive, objective, and long-term approach, the manifestations, origins, and effects of migration in the region; as well as measures to promote close cooperation among countries of origin, transit, and destination in order to ensure protection of the human rights of migrants; and

c. Continue to prepare the Inter-American Program for the Promotion of the Human Rights of Migrants, with the assistance of the IACHR and the IOM.

5. To recommend to the Inter-American Council for Integral Development (CIDI) that it: a. Support the projects and activities presented by member states on behalf of all migrant workers and their families in the framework of the Strategic Plan for Partnership for Development 2002-2005;

b. Request the Inter-American Agency for Cooperation and Development (IACD) to identify new resources to support the efforts by member states to formulate cooperation projects to study, examine, and address the situation of migrant workers and their families in the Hemisphere; and

c. To request the Inter-American Agency for Cooperation and Development (IACD) to collaborate and coordinate, where necessary, on the projects and activities in this area with the IACHR, the International Organization for Migration (IOM); the International Labour Organization (ILO), and other organs, agencies, and entities.

6. To recommend to the IACHR that it: a. Consider the advisability of adopting joint cooperation programs with the IACD in this area;

b. Provide the Special Rapporteur for Migrant Workers and Their Families with the necessary and appropriate means to perform his or her duties in keeping with resources allocated in the program-budget and other resources; and

c. Present the report on the status of the rights of all migrant workers and their families prior to the thirty-third regular session of the General Assembly.

7. To invite the member states, permanent observers, organs, agencies, and entities of the inter-American system, and other sources to contribute to the Voluntary Fund of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for issues involving the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families.

8. To request the Councils of the Organization to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-third regular session on the implementation of this resolution in their respective spheres.

definitions: Migrant=illegals Xenaphobes=patriots determined to protect their heritage and culture from marxist invasion, who demand that the Constitution of their own nation be the highest human authority over them.

[Southack]

"Have you bothered to study what the Fed's definition of Free Trade Zone is? It's no sovereign borders from the North of Canada to the tip of Cape Horn."

...

164 posted on 08/03/2003 2:59 PM CDT by MissAmericanPie

[Southack]

First of all, review Post #457 as it shows that your Post #456 clearly dances away from what I'm referring to. Nice dance, but such tactics won't cut it.

I'm talking about the wild-eyed claim that you made originally in your post #164, where you asserted that the Federal government's official definition of a "free trade zone" was an area with "no sovereign borders."

Needless to say, I'm beginning to suspect that you are not prepared to support your claim with a legitimate government source, nor do you appear to be intellectually honest enough to recant your claim.

Telling me over and over and over again to go do my own search isn't going to cut it, dear. Either you can or can not show where a U.S. government web site defines a free trade zone as having "no sovereign borders."

So here again, as a matter of courtesy, I am giving you yet another chance to either substantiate your claim from Post #164 or else recant it and have the subject dropped (by me, at least).

That is, either show me that the Federal government uses the specific words "no sovereign borders" as per your claim (in which you had the nerve to assert that I was uneducated on the official definition), or else admit that you've made it all up because your argument was so weak that it needed pure fabrications to prop it up.

Anything short of the actual words "no sovereign borders" will eliminate your credibility on this issue.

I would have been more lenient, except that you took a gratuitous swipe at me by implying that I wasn't educated on the official government definition.

Well, that government definition is now your petard. The only remaining question is whether you will be hoisted on it.

[sarasmom]

BS!
Really. Bull sh!t!
Contrary to the belief system of partisan politicians and their mind numbed minions,most people want the best possible candidate to serve as POTUS.
We may have to resort to an involuntary draft system to get him/her.
While it must be a happy place for you to be in, that your chosen POTUS serves most of your interests, can you even imagine the nightmare that those of us who see this POTUS standing tall on offense, and actively working against defense, are left with?
If he cant even muster a unified base that supports him for his general policies, why on earth should anyone vote for him?
Do you even know his stated positions on important subjects?
Or are you just happy to give him 4 more years because he kicked some long overdue ass?

[MissAmericanPie]

Your being deliberately ignorant, do you see any plans in the FTAA to curb migration? Do you see Bush supporting FTAA? Did Bush attempt to sneak 245i past watchful citizens not once but twice? Do you see Bush pushing for border security even after 9-11?

Wanna Bush quote? "If you make five dollars an hour in Mexico and can make fifty and hour in Detriot, you're going to come aren't you."..(chuckle)

"I invision a Free Trade Zone from the north most of Canada to the tip of Cape Horn".

Give it up. Your dumb act is boring.