Posted on 03/23/2002 4:34:33 AM PST by VRWC_minion
Mr Simmons,
This is to advise you about a push poll that was directed to me last night about 9pm in East Hampton. After establishing I was a likely voter, the oldest male and was a republican I was asked who I would vote for. After telling them the republican candidate most likely (because I don't know you because of redistricting) I was asked a series of questions which included (not exact wording) :
1. Simmons voted for 450 million in retro active tax benefits for Enron.
2. Simmons voted against school building.
3. Simmons voted against allowing us to sure HMO's and taking away benefits from elderly.
He then asked me would I still vote for Simmons. I told him his questions were based on flawed premises and that this was a push poll. I was surprised that he didn't tell me Simmons was an ax murderer but yes I will still vote for the ax murderer.
The contact person I was given for this poll is Amy Collier, 215-641-2200 ext 2247. I left her a message telling her the polling company was lower scum than Clinton.
I am angry about this call and am willing to offer whatever assistance I can to you in the upcoming election in East Hampton, please let me know what I can do to help.
Ray
No, why do you ask ?
That is the way it looks to you but to me its starting off with the current realities and working from there. We cannot move politicians to the right any farther than 51% of their voters. Our opponents know this and do so by controlling the media message as well as the school messages. As long as your posistion on an issue is with less than 50% of the voters its a dead posistion.
So, my job is twofold. It is to vote for the candidate that is closest to my way of thinking and to make moe people think like me.
I'm the problem. I belong somewhere where the Hartford Courant would go out of business, and Simmons would not get elected because he is too liberal. One of my favorite Free Republic threads of all time was last year's Need to be with my own kind, where I asked Freepers where the best place to live was.
I did no such thing, and I challenge you to find the post.
Upon failure of your being able to do so, I do expect a public apology.
I would say how interesting a point of view, what makes you say that ?
More importantly what would you say if your pastor said that he was going to do something that was clearly against God's teachings according to the Bible because he thought the congregation wanted him to?
As the Senior Warden, my obligation is clear. If after discussing it with the pastor he would not relent, I would have to take the issue to the other officers and or vestry, if it still isn't resolved I would report the issue to the Bishop who according to the Episcopal canons is in charge of spiritual matters.
If the congregation agreed with him I would have to find the least divisive way of explaining why I took such actions. If the Bishop agreed with him I would have to weigh out what God calls me to do. It may be that God calls me to stay and be a witness to the truth or it may be that God is calling me to move on.
Now that we entered into religion, one of the gifts God has given me is the gift of prophecy. If you understand Christian gifts, the gift of prophecy has nothing to do with Jean Dixon. I quite regularly see things from a whole different prespective as most everyone else.
God helps me see how the parts are connected to the whole better than most and I often end up with different opinions than most because of it. Over the years I have grown used to learning to be patient with others who cannot see what I see.
Consequently, I can belong to groups which hold beliefs differently than me. Partly because I know they need time to understand. If I attempt to quicken their pace it only delays it.
Yes, of course. Lets say that tomorrow 2/3 of the representatives wanted to do away with the second and polls showed 2/3 of the population agreed. Would you want a show down at that time ?
|
|
YOS = Years of Service Life = Lifetime Rating from the American Conservative Union |
You're a damn' liar. Here are my three posts that reference Peter Fitzgerald in the last week:
BTW: I haven't had a chance to look, but did Fitzgerald vote for or against this bill?
To: usconservative
Fitzgerald voted YES
100 posted on 3/20/02 4:24 PM Central by Queen of Excelsior
To: Queen of Excelsior
Fitzgerald voted YES
Thanks. He's toast.
107 posted on 3/20/02 4:27 PM Central by usconservative
I won't bother waiting for the apology. You aren't man/woman/whatever you are enough to admit you're wrong.
‘Last Battle of Cold War’
"Rest easy. We finally got him!"
When State Sen. Tony Guglielmo (R.) of Stafford Springs, Conn., called with those words last week, I didn’t have to ask what he was talking about. By fewer than 2,000 votes out of more than 223,000 cast, GOP State Rep. Rob Simmons had unseated 20-year Rep. Sam Gejdenson, ranking Demo-crat on the House International Relations Committee, in the Nutmeg State’s 2nd District.
For Guglielmo, the results were particularly heartening. In 1980, as a young insuranceman and first-time candidate, Guglielmo was the first of a string of Republicans to go up against Gejdenson, losing a tight battle for the Eastern Connecticut district that then-Rep. Christopher Dodd (D.) had vacated to run successfully for the U.S. Senate. Over the next two decades, Gejdenson’s margins would range from landslides in 1986 and ’88 to an extremely narrow (21 votes) escape from defeat in 1994–the closest House race in the nation.
Symbolically, his loss two weeks ago at the hands of Simmons was, as one conservative stalwart put it, "the last battle of the Cold War." A onetime anti-Vietnam War protester at the University of Connecticut who cut his political eyeteeth in the 1970 U.S. Senate race of former Americans for Democratic Action Chairman Joseph Duffey (now Bill Clinton’s head of the U.S. Information Agency), Gejdenson (lifetime American Conservative Union rating: 5%) in his years on the International Relations Committee made no bones about his sympathies for leftist regimes from Angola to South America.
In contrast, the 57-year-old Simmons is a proud U.S. Army veteran who rose from private to colonel in the reserves and won two Bronze Stars in Vietnam. He also served as a Central Intelligence Agency operative in Southeast Asia (where he mastered Chinese, French and Vietnamese) and as staff director of the Senate Intelligence Committee before winning his legislative seat in 1990.
Although much of the Simmons-Gejdenson contest focused on local issues, many believe the outcome was determined by the sharply disparate backgrounds of the candidates.
‘Unacceptable’
When most observers on the right see the phrase "Connecticut Republican," they immediately assume "not conservative." Sure enough, Rob Simmons takes the line of virtually all GOP officeholders in the state, saying he is "moderate on social issues and conservative on economic issues"–meaning that he is "pro-choice" on abortion. However, the GOP nominee did point to his record in the state legislature, where he supported Republican Gov. John Rowland’s tax cuts and called for scrapping the estate tax and the marriage penalty, and in the campaign he attacked Gejdenson’s support of gun control–a key issue in a district with small bucolic towns where hunting is very popular.
Simmons also benefited from the publication of Without Reservation, a book about Indian tribes’ acquisition of land in Connecticut and gaining the status of a virtually independent nation. According to author Jeff Benedict, Gejdenson had worked closely with former Gov. (1990-94) Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (Independent) to pave the way for Pequot Indians to come from Maine to Eastern Connecticut, establish casinos, and be free of state taxes–all of which has made many longtime area residents very uncomfortable.
Gejdenson even helped make it possible, Benedict observed, for anyone with the slightest claim of Pequot blood to be part of the "nation," in contrast to the restrictions in Maine. Without Reservation has been selling well throughout Eastern Connecticut and, sources say, provided a boost for Simmons. The town of Ledyard, home of one of the Pequot-run casinos, has been reliably Democratic, but this time voted 3 to 1 for the Republican candidate.
Because he won the GOP nod without opposition, Simmons was able to raise money early and be competitive with Gejdenson throughout their contest. When a suddenly desperate incumbent launched last-minute media salvoes suggesting that Simmons had voted for placing toxic waste near public schools, the Republican immediately countered with spots showing an attractive young woman pointing out that the accusation was a malicious twisting of votes Simmons had cast in Hartford. When you know Simmons, "you’ll love him as much as I do," concludes the young lady–who is Simmons’ daughter.
But what may well have ensured Gejdenson’s defeat was an attempt by two of his staffers in the week before the election to "shop" to the media a story that Simmons, while in uniform in Vietnam, had been guilty of William Calley-style "war crimes." The staffers’ flimsy "evidence," it turned out, was a years-old newspaper interview in which Simmons mentioned his days as a U.S. advisor to the South Vietnamese police and recalled how the police would not feed Communist prisoners unless they cooperated and provided information–theoretically a "war crime," but something that advisor Simmons had nothing to do with.
Simmons struck back hard, opening his entire record overseas to the press. Much of the area media condemned Gejdenson for peddling the story, and the embattled congressman fired the two staffers. Then, on the weekend before the balloting, Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain hit Connecticut and joined up with Simmons in a string of appearances to denounce the opposition’s attack as "unacceptable."
"It saddens me because a lot of us since we returned from Vietnam have worked hard to heal the wounds of a war that divided this country," declared the visibly angry former Vietnam POW.
Even though he took out a veteran Democratic incumbent in the Northeast, is Simmons’ win really a net gain for conservatives? "Look, Rob Simmons is not going to be Dick Cheney in the House because the Northeast is not exactly Wyoming," says Tony Guglielmo. "I would guess that he’s going to be more conservative than our two sitting Republican House members [Chris Shays and Nancy Johnson]. We worked together on a lot of things in the legislature and I know that Rob is very skeptical of big government doing things individuals can do on their own. And when you consider whom he unseated, you become very forgiving of some ‘unconservative’ things that might be in his record."
Samuel Pierce, R.I.P.
Despite frequent reminders in the media that several of his associates at the Department of Urban Development were convicted of corruption and influence-peddling charges and that Ronald Reagan did not recognize his own cabinet member at a meeting of municipal leaders and called him "Mr. Mayor," Samuel Riley Pierce was highly admired by conservatives, who mourned his death October 31 following a stroke. Pierce, the lone Reagan cabinet member to serve all eight years of the 40th President’s tenure, had made good on the conservative pledge to roll back government. He oversaw the slashing of his department’s budget from $26 billion in 1981 to $8 billion in 1989 and the elimination of such controversial, pork-laden programs as UDAG grants.
New Yorker Pierce, who was black, had lived an eventful life of achievement before he joined the cabinet. A graduate of Cornell University, where he was a star athlete, Pierce served in the U.S. Army in World War II and, following his discharge, got his law degree from Cornell. As an assistant U.S. attorney in New York, Pierce helped bring the indictment against Rep. (1944-70) Adam Clayton Powell (D.-N.Y.) on charges of income tax evasion in a nationally watched trial. Powell survived–in large part because his lawyer Edward Bennett Williams convinced jurors that the IRS had never given the Harlem Democrat the opportunity provided most taxpayers to first explain his return (Powell had deducted his liquor and clothing bills).
Pierce went on to serve in the U.S. Labor Department in the Eisenhower Administration and as counsel to the antitrust subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller (R.) named him a judge of the Court of General Sessions in 1959-60, and President Nixon appointed Pierce general counsel to the U.S. Treasury Department (1970-73). Pierce also served as Martin Luther King, Jr.’s lawyer in the landmark Supreme Court libel case New York Times v. Sullivan and remained a close friend of Coretta Scott King and her family, despite his GOP ties. Prior to joining the Reagan Administration, Pierce was a partner in the law firm of Battle, Fowler, Jaffin, Pierce & Kheel–making him the first black partner in a major New York firm.
He was 78.
In a post to VA Advogado I wrote:
And Fitzgerald (my Senator) is the *only* Senator with the balls to vote against the airline bailout after Sept. 11th, which did NOTHING to improve airline security, passenger service, or ontime performance. It was a cash-cow giveaway and Fitzgerald was the only Senator with the balls to vote against it.
That's hardly "hero" worship. It's a factual statement of the record, which is indisputable. IL Sen. Peter Fitzgerald was the ONLY sitting senator to vote against the Airline Bailout.
Poor VA Advogado couldn't handle it when I further said:
Pot, meet kettle.
And he bailed on the thread, in true chicken-shat style.
As I said, poor VA Advogado can't even do an effective smear of someone. The published record of FR was just used against him.
Game, set, match.
Unfortunately? Hmm, a Hate America First Leftist perhaps?
You're pathetic. You made an allegation and when challenged to prove it, you failed. Now you try and change the direction of conversation because you don't want attention drawn to the fact that you can't prove your hyperbolic statements.
You're pathetic. You're done. I'm finished wasting my time with a pathetic delusional factually-challenged loser like you. I've been outed? LMFAO! You need to take a good hard look at yourself. You've been unable to answer a single challenge throughout the entire thread! LOL!
Don't bother responding. I'll not be wasting my time with the likes of you any further.
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.