Posted on 05/22/2006 4:26:39 PM PDT by no dems
O.K. Freepers, here’s the list of Pubbies who voted with the Dems Thursday to give Social Security benefits to Illegal Aliens.
Brownback (KS)
Chafee (RI)
DeWine (OH)
Graham (SC)
Hagel (NE)
Lugar (IN)
Martinez (FL)
McCain (AZ)
Specter (PA)
Stevens (AK)
Voinovich (OH)
I must admit that I was shocked by Brownback’s and Lugar’s votes.
Brownback has been pro illrgal alien for some time now.
Lugar is an internationalist UN world Government type.
I'm going to interrupt your temper tantrum to ask, is there even one issue that you consider "non-negotiable"? Or will you sell out all your beliefs?
Not Snowe, not Collins - that's a little progress anyhow.....
Sounds like "changing the party from within at the primaries" is almost as much as a long shot as going third party.
It certainly seems odd to see the words "pro" and "illegal" together.
It's like being pro death and taxes...a combination only a liberal undertaker could love.
but-you-must-always-vote-Republican-no-matter-what
no-matter-what-matter-what-wh-wh-wh-what
Yes, but if you can't convince the voters in a Republican primary to support a conservative candidate then you will never be able to get the general electorate to support a conservative third party candidate.
But sure many things are non-negotiable for me. And for me, border security is important, but I don't see illegal immigration as much of a moral issue or as much of a threat to this country as abortion, illegitimate births and assaults on the definition of the family. The islamists look at the perversion of the West and laugh. And the West will never truly intimidate islamists until there is a return in this to true biblical morality. The Democrat party embodies the culture of perversion and I could never associate myself with it.
As far as illegals go, my wife and I live among alot of them in Southern California. While some are scum sucking weasels, I find that their work ethic, family life and overall morality is preferable to that of the lazy good for nothing trailer trash that passes for red-blooded native born Americans these days.
But, I'm not going to make a fool out of myself by declaring every day that the GOP has abandoned me simply because of the actions of a few misguided Republicans in the Senate on one issue. Especially when the stinky parts of the Senate bill will be deleted in conference anyway.
Besides, I embrace a religious point of view that is in the distinct minortiy. My faith dictates that I take a long term view, knowing that the good guys will win in the end.
You guys are in hysterics over every fool thing that McCain or Graham or Hagel proposes. You gotta learn to realize that they won't call the shots....the House will and your ranting and raving makes it more likely that we will lose the house rather than retain it.
Yehp, I was cnsidering it. His military service would make him a more compelling comander. He is more serious about cutting spending then Bush. But, after that no way jose.
Come on... Many Republican senators start out very conservative then become less so. Take a look at Senator McCain's ACU rating--- it's still pretty high because it used to be great. ACU ratings also don't always tell the whole story--- I remember Chuck Hagel getting a 100 score one year even though he'd spent it undermining the president from the left on conservative issues.
My only point is that folks just can't label a senator as a RINO, simply because they go off the reservation on one or even two issues. It's short-sighted.
We don't hesitate to voice our opinions loudly when our Senators don't do what we elected them to do.
To have two of the eleven from our state is shameful.
BTTT
Column by Ron Elving
Watching Washington
By Ron Elving
Conservatives Hold Key to House's Future
“For conservatives who care about the long haul, maybe it's better to have Democrats control the House for the next two years with the White House and Senate still in Republican hands, rather than to risk having all three go Democratic in 2008.”
NPR.org, May 22, 2006 · Official Washington usually takes its temperature by looking at one political thermometer: the president's approval rating. But lately, with President Bush mired in the 30 percent range, that metric has gotten to be old news.
The new measurement of choice is the number of Republican House seats considered competitive in November's congressional elections. If you want to know how the climate's changing, week by week and even day by day, watch how these estimates go up and down.
This month, the number of competitive House seats has risen dramatically on the GOP side, from the mid-20s to the mid-30s on some handicappers' scorecards. It may not seem that big a shift within 435 seats, but it could be enough to change party control of the House next year. And that would change official Washington, and the direction of federal policy, a great deal.
Let's look at the math. If fewer than two dozen Republican seats are vulnerable, the Democrats need to sweep two-thirds of them (while protecting every one of their own vulnerable seats) to take over. That is highly improbable. But adding 10 or 12 more Republican seats at the margin brings the tipping point within reach.
Put another way, the Republicans' majority status looked safe so long as only 20 to 25 of their seats were competitive. But stretch the Republican target list by half again (without a corresponding change for Democrats) and the probabilities change dramatically.
But why are certain Republican incumbents who began the year as safe bets suddenly looking shaky?
To answer that question, you have to go back to the reason House incumbents are almost always re-elected: Their districts are drawn to be safe (or nearly safe) for their party. Most incumbents in either party can count on a base of friendly voters turning out for them every two years. All their other incumbent advantages -- name recognition, fat campaign coffers, and gratitude for service -- are built on top of this.
This dynamic usually works with brutal efficiency, but it has an Achilles heel. It relies on those friendly voters to turn out and to vote the party line. Every now and then, they may not.
In 1994, Democrats in the South and elsewhere bailed out on their party incumbents in stunning numbers, ending 40 years of Democratic dominance in the House. They were unhappy about the first two years of Bill Clinton's presidency, and they were disgusted with the performance of the House itself. Some stayed home, others turned out and voted Republican.
This year, the pinch is on the right. Polls show conservatives disillusioned with George W. Bush's presidency, and many are disgusted with the performance of the House. Few of these conservatives will be willing to hold their noses and vote Democratic, but in some districts they could ruin a Republican incumbent simply by staying home on Election Day.
Some may do this simply as an expression of personal protest. Others may do it deliberately, intending to end the current Republican majority in the House and force out the Republican leadership.
They would do so with a strategic purpose: to assert the primacy of conservative principle over business-as-usual in Congress. And they would do it with an eye on the longer struggle, reasoning that it's better to break the current cycle of failure within the all-Republican power structure.
If you care about the long haul, maybe it's better to have Democrats control the House for the next two years with the White House and Senate still in Republican hands, rather than to risk having all three go Democratic in 2008.
To be sure, no Republican Party loyalist will ever counsel such a strategy. But not all the votes Republicans count on are cast by loyal party people. Many are cast by conservative independents who may feel less connection to the GOP today than they have in many years. It starts with disagreements about spending levels and goes on through a litany of grievances: the war in Iraq, the party split over immigration, the division between economic and social conservatives.
Recent polls show just this kind of disaffection emerging among conservatives, and that's why some of the Republican incumbents in slightly-less-safe districts are suddenly feeling the pressure.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5424332
I totally agree. I just know that it seems like certain Washington D.C. institutions, like the Senate and the Supreme Court, seem like places where one generally gains respect by growing in office... I hope Senator Brownback stays the great senator he's been so far.
When you're out some cold dark night with your wife and children in tow, let me know how it turns out when you try to form a coalition with the person who wants to do your family harm. There are times when touchy feely isn't an option, and I consider this to be such a time. You obviously don't, and that is why I have dismissed your opinion. If you can't grasp it, you can't grasp it.
Conservatism's defining characteristic is that it appeals to reason, logic and good sense. Unfortunately most of the rhetoric coming from these threads has been lasking in all three. Casting jeremiads is usually the apocalyptic rhetoric device of the left. It's a pity that hissy fits and gloomy emotionalism passes conservative dialogue these days.
The fact is that the Senate is going to pass a bill this week. It will reek with offensive provisions, but a bill will get passed and go to conference. This sort of thing happens all the time on all sorts of issues in Congress. In conference the offensive provsisions of the Senate bill are usually deleted and compromises are reached or nothing goes to the WH. Kyl, Cornyn, Sessions, et al. understand this and will probably be in the conference. But if no bill passes the Senate, the border fence will not be built and nothing will be addressed in any way whatsoever this year.
Yet, in your mind you see Senator Sam Brownback with close to a 100% ACU rating, as a threat to me and my family. And you dismiss MY opinions? I give up. See ya later.
It's too bad but the experiment with the GOP controlling the CIC, House and Senate certainly hasn't worked very well. Still I hate to give back one to the Dems.
Does someone have naked pictures of Lindsey Graham with a ten year old boy? He's a heck of a Conservative.
I do understand where you are coming from. I just disagree with your thought process. That's not meant as a put-down. It just means I don't like to see you dismiss or overlook the obvious to arrive at the conclusion you have.
It doesn't surprise me that you have never been threatened by an illegal alien. None the less many of our citizens have been the victims of illegal alien crime. Still, that wasn't the issue I was seeking to address. Criminal activity is certainly a part of this, but it isn't the most insidious part of it. Whether you acknowledge it or not, we are involved in a process that has the likely outcome of causing this nation great harm. I have watched this Senate and House long enough to realize that we are going to be sold down the river. I am not happy about it, and I freqently touch on the subject.
I'm assessing three to five moves down the game while you're still thinking about where the Senate and Congress are going to move their next piece. That's okay, but it's also the reason we're talking past each other.
I see people talking about legalizing eleven million illegal aliens inside our nation. That translates to twenty million to me, because I recognize that eleven million is a bogus number. It's stated low to give additional cover to those who wish to play down the impact of what is about to take place. If the American public actually recognized what is about to take place, they'd be even more angry than they are right now about this situation.
Yesterday (at least I believe it was yesterday) the subject of Social Security came up. When twenty million 'new citizens' get the opportunity to bring their parents into the nation, who is going to pay for those parent's retirement? When the Armenians came over their elderly were given Social Security shortly after arriving in the U.S. Do you think it will be good for our nation to throw twenty to thrity million more people on our Social Security system, people who never worked a day inside our nation? That's just one of the things that is just ahead, if this immigration fix is botched. There are a myriad of these types of pitfalls that our kids will have to deal with, even if the immigration plan is only limited to legalizing everyone who is already here. And these bills are NOT going to stop there.
When you glibly talk about what a fine upstanding person a Senator is, if they are signing on to any of this in any way, recognize that it's going to be fatal to the United States you and I grew up in.
Conservatism's defining characteristic is that it appeals to reason, logic and good sense. Unfortunately most of the rhetoric coming from these threads has been lasking in all three. Casting jeremiads is usually the apocalyptic rhetoric device of the left. It's a pity that hissy fits and gloomy emotionalism passes conservative dialogue these days.
Well, this immigration debachle has failed each of the three tests in your first sentence. It is not reasonable to ask U.S. Citizens to sign on to a plan that will see 20 million people legalized, realizing that when they are naturalized they will be responsible for bringing over another 60 to 80 million people. It is not logical for us to sign on to a plan that will flood this nation with poor undereducated individuals who will exponentially drive up the already staggering financial impact of illegal aliens in the U.S. And nobody using their wildest imagination could claim this would make good sense.
What will be the impact of having 100 million new citizens who have been in-country thirty years or less? We stand to see anywhere from 25 to 40% of our populace freshly off the boat, yet expected to exercise their right to vote while adhering to things like our founding principles and avoiding nanny state freebies. We have a hard enough time getting our own long-term citizens to grasp these issues. Now it seems reasonable to you, to introduce a new body of people into our nation that are suseptible to the politics of pandering? Surely you see the risk in this.
Dismissing the raising of these issues as merely 'apocalyptic rhetoric', is shameful. The impact of what we are addressing is going to be massive, yet you dismiss it in a number of ways. You call it 'apocalypic rhetoric', 'hissy fits' and 'gloomy emotionalism' in just this one sentence. I'm sure the same could have been said about our founding fathers. It could have been said about Winston Chruchill. It's being said right now about those who support the War on Terrorism.
The fact is that the Senate is going to pass a bill this week. It will reek with offensive provisions, but a bill will get passed and go to conference. This sort of thing happens all the time on all sorts of issues in Congress. In conference the offensive provsisions of the Senate bill are usually deleted and compromises are reached or nothing goes to the WH. Kyl, Cornyn, Sessions, et al. understand this and will probably be in the conference. But if no bill passes the Senate, the border fence will not be built and nothing will be addressed in any way whatsoever this year.
Yes, this is the process. Still, your comment about the border fense not being build is somewhat humorous. I'm not particularly impressed with only 375 of 2000 miles of our border getting a fence. I'm not particularly impressed knowing that the illegals will be legalized. During this process, the Senate and the President have used to word 'compromize' quite a bit. The absurd aspect of that is that this is not going to be a compromise at all. You and I both know that the following will take place.
The illegals will be legalized
The healthcare drain will continue
The education drain will continue
The welfare drain will continue
A half-assed attempt at stopping the flow of illegals will gain some success, but the flow will continue at half the present rate
A Guest Worker plan will be implemented seeing millions more pour across our borders 'legally'
Immigration rules will be relaxed with the net result of our present immigration rate being doubled or more
When this takes place, a number of other things will be set in motion that will simply swamp this nation with everything from Balkinaization to massive financial problems.
Yet, in your mind you see Senator Sam Brownback with close to a 100% ACU rating, as a threat to me and my family. And you dismiss MY opinions? I give up. See ya later.
There are reasons why I see people like Brownback the way I do. With regard to this issue, the man is nothing more than an enabler. It's what he is prepared to enable that influences my opinion of him. This isn't an issue that is going to be addressed and then fade away into the woodwork. This massive example of FUBAR is going to haunt our nation until it's downfall. IMO, it's a major stride in that direction. You disagree, and I can live with it. Later.
137 posted on 05/23/2006 10:07:53 AM PDT by Don'tMessWithTexas
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.