Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did Anyone Receive This Deceptive Robo Call in California?
Armstrong & Getty Show ^ | 10.7.03 | Armstrong & Getty

Posted on 10/07/2003 10:07:12 AM PDT by bootless

I was wondering if anyone had gotten this deceptive robo-call. Armstrong & Getty played it a couple of times this morning. It's by a woman who says (paraphrased - unsure phrases in square brackets):

"As a Republican woman voter, I favor family values. But Arnold Schwarzenegger's [behavior makes it impossible for me to support him], and Tom McClintock can't win. So, vote no on the recall, and let's wait for a REAL Republican in 2006. And also, vote yes on 53 and no on 54. This message brought to you by the Council of Concerned Women (slightly softer voice) Voters."

This is the Democratic platform. There is no such organization as the Council of Concerned Women Voters. She said the word "voters" more softly, and if you weren't listening very carefully, you might think this was the actual conservative women's group Concerned Women for America.


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: deceit; fakegroup; knew; kste; rats; recall
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last
To: MEGoody
Oops on me. I think a caller had mentioned that... thanks!
41 posted on 10/07/2003 10:38:02 AM PDT by bootless (Never Forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
Are there really people like this?

Yeah, but I think they're Democrats.

42 posted on 10/07/2003 10:38:34 AM PDT by bootless (Never Forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: bootless
Put them on the "Do Not Call List"!
43 posted on 10/07/2003 10:38:35 AM PDT by ItsOurTimeNow ("Forth now, and fear no darkness!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bootless
Yes. Got it last night.
44 posted on 10/07/2003 10:39:33 AM PDT by The KG9 Kid (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
Hey Sis! I'm feeling OK - not enough sleep. Too much freeping, I guess.

I want the S.S. Gray Davis to go down fast!
45 posted on 10/07/2003 10:39:39 AM PDT by bootless (Never Forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
Thanks for checking in~!
46 posted on 10/07/2003 10:40:15 AM PDT by bootless (Never Forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
I mean, c'mon! Are there really people like this?

In a word, yes.

47 posted on 10/07/2003 10:40:16 AM PDT by .38sw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
There is a group called "Concerned Women of America" (or something very close to that) but they are far from conservative.

Well, I agree that this phone call is trying to fool listeners into thinking that the CWA is behind the calls, but the CWA most certainly is conservative and in favor of tradtional "family values." Link to the real CWA's site.

48 posted on 10/07/2003 10:45:01 AM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
constitutional amendments make lousy fiscal management tools.

I agree but it's better than free reign. Prop 53 is a "parental lock" device, needed for when the children are in charge. Infrastructure funds are the first to be raided. Socialists love pot holes and gridlock because it gives reason to raise taxes.

49 posted on 10/07/2003 10:46:32 AM PDT by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: bootless
I want the S.S. Gray Davis to go down fast!

Yes! And speaking of sinking political ships: today also shall bring The Wreck of the Cruz Bustamante!

50 posted on 10/07/2003 10:50:01 AM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Reeses
The problem is that you can't undo the parental lock when the grownups are in charge, and sometimes you don't NEED to spend 3% on infrastructure. Also, the definition of "infrastructure" is a wee bit vague in Prop 53.
51 posted on 10/07/2003 10:50:44 AM PDT by Poohbah ("[Expletive deleted] 'em if they can't take a joke!" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Reeses
The Democrats are against prop 53, which was written by a conservative and is supported by McClintock and Schwarzenegger. The Freeper vote should be yes on prop 53...

The Democrats do indeed support prop 53 and Bustamante has TV commercials supporting it. The proposition require that 3% of the annual state budget be spent on infrastrucure/transportation. 3% - no more, no less. It is a fiscal straight jacket.

52 posted on 10/07/2003 10:51:02 AM PDT by Hoof Hearted
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bootless
New Tagline BUMP!
53 posted on 10/07/2003 10:52:39 AM PDT by strela (Gray, Arnold Barada Recall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Hoof Hearted
The Democrats do indeed support prop 53 and Bustamante has TV commercials supporting it.

You've been fooled! The Indians are running pro-prop53 ads with Bustamante featured because they want better roads built to their casinos. Bustamante is against prop 53. McClintock and Schwarzenegger are for it! It was written by a conservative. The Indians are off the Democrat reservation on this.

54 posted on 10/07/2003 10:56:59 AM PDT by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: bootless
Did they show the spot as part of their "news coverage"?

No, it was shown as a commercial, the same one that the Dems and Feinstein have been running for weeks. How it's soooo bad for California...

55 posted on 10/07/2003 11:06:18 AM PDT by christie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: christie
Don't know who you can contact, but sounds like they're busted! Gray Davis breaking election law? Bust him!
56 posted on 10/07/2003 11:17:33 AM PDT by bootless (Never Forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
LOL!

Prairie
57 posted on 10/07/2003 11:34:48 AM PDT by prairiebreeze (I'm a monthly donor to FR. And proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bootless
Your One Stop Resource For All The California Recall News!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin

58 posted on 10/07/2003 11:36:32 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pogo101
"Well, I agree that this phone call is trying to fool listeners into thinking that the CWA is behind the calls, but the CWA most certainly is conservative and in favor of tradtional "family values."

What I'm trying to say, not so clearly so far, is that there is a group of Demoncrats who have started a similar group with a similar sounding name. Reminds me of those guys who take advantage of misspellings to direct kids to porn sites.

59 posted on 10/07/2003 11:43:27 AM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
What I'm trying to say, not so clearly so far, is that there is a group of Demoncrats who have started a similar group with a similar sounding name

Oh, I agree. As I said up in #7, "Turns out it's more simple: just your typical made-up group that's supposed to sound like CWA but isn't. Bet it's 100% a Demo/Union front group."

60 posted on 10/07/2003 11:46:48 AM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson