Thread: Will we get duped again like some of us did in 2004?

Will we get duped again like some of us did in 2004? What does that statement mean you ask? Well in 2004 it was considered a close election and in a close election every vote counts. So when your vote is very much needed you take positions like: President Bush, if you want to earn my vote for re-election you must enforce immigration laws immediately or else you will not get my vote. Don't be shy,spell it out. But instead the national voices who speak to this issue took the position of, kneel down, shut up and vote for Bush. I can tell you a true story of a sellout at RNC convention in Manhattan in 2004 by someone who claims to be on our side but some of you probably won't like it so I will hold off for now.

But it is 2006 now and the mid-term elections are coming up and a small group of voters once again are projected to have decisive power. Let's look at 2002. It was a lot of close wins for republicans decided by only 1.5% of the electorate. The democrats employed a poor redistricting strategy in 2000 making safe seats safer, whereas republicans gambled a bit with their redistricting strategy going for a lot of close wins and that is how it played out. However the republican strategy is based on strong base turnout so you see why republicans need you to stay in power. If only 2% of the people who usually vote republican nationwide withdraw their support for republicans that may cost them the House. They can not gamble with that possibility because if Pelosi becomes speaker, impeachment becomes a possibility.

So once again a small group of voters have the decisive power. Will this small group drop to their knees and say nothing while guest worker amnesty is stuffed down their throat and vote republican no matter what or will they speak up and say the price of gueat worker amnesty is that I will I will vote against every republican on the ballot in 2006. If you think that is unfair then do not let gueat worker amnesty become law.
I know where I stand and it is not kneeling. As long as people continue to support the problem there is no incentive for change.

dxd, I have said it over and over, even though I am a registered republican, I will only vote for those supporting the immigration reform bill and those opposing the guestworker plan(no matter what party) and I put that as a P.S. at the bottom of the www.numbersusa faxes I send! I know I have my homework cut out for me trying to keep up with who is with or against us on this, but it is worth the effort. The only way to stop this invasion is to vote the wrong ones out and the right ones in and I am encouraging everyone I know to vote. We can get rid of those catering to big business and illegals, if only everyone will vote!

Originally Posted by dxd

They can not gamble with that possibility because if Pelosi becomes speaker, impeachment becomes a possibility.

The problem in this scenario is then Pelosi become President! She is worse than Bush, if that is possible. So we need to at least keep the House in Republican hands. If the Senate passes amnesty it's OK to punish the Republicans by letting Democrats take control of the Senate.

Hi Tim, it's an honor to reply to what you post - a personal honor. Well, enough, enough, no groveling allowed. Well, it's an honor anyway.

Tim, I think that the only way any other Democrat could run in the primary is with Hillary's approval. The only other Democratic candidate (according to the Drudge Report and Myway News) is Cindy Sheehan. Sooner or later, Hillary (the smartest woman in the world) will shut her down in a New York minute.

Anyone who has the <ahem> to run against Hillary needs to talk to Rick Lazio first. Or they need to visit Vince Foster's gravesite. Or they need to talk to families of the two boys that got caught at the Mena Airport, then visit the railroad tracks. And the list goes on and on and on.

I gotta start being careful what I post to websites.

Laters,
Coto

The problem in this scenario is then Pelosi become President! She is worse than Bush, if that is possible. So we need to at least keep the House in Republican hands. If the Senate passes amnesty it's OK to punish the Republicans by letting Democrats take control of the Senate.

I agree with TimBinh,

The difference between Bush and Kerry was Kerry wanted to make all the illegal immigrants legal within 6 months.

There was no choice there, if you think voting Democratic is better that having Republicans you are wrong. They both stink.

The House is our only hope now, I have no hope for the Senate, they are bought and payed for just like anyone they run for President.

We need to thoroughly inspect the voting record of anyone up for election in the Senate, if their report card is bad, then throw them out. I know I am going third party, or for anyone who makes illegal immigration their top priority and not some "Johnny come lately" to the issue for this election cycle.

As far as President is concerned unless it is Tom Tancredo or Lou Dobbs, it will be third party, and don't let anyone tell you that is a wasted vote. It is not.

Anyone who has the <ahem> to run against Hillary needs to talk to Rick Lazio first. Or they need to visit Vince Foster's gravesite. Or they need to talk to families of the two boys that got caught at the Mena Airport, then visit the railroad tracks. And the list goes on and on and on.

"Ditto" on this Coto.

The difference between Bush and Kerry was Kerry wanted to make all the illegal immigrants legal within 6 months.

That is true. And Kerry would have turned right around and signed the same trade agreements that Bush did, giving away that many more American jobs.

I wish I'd voted for a thrid party candidate instead of letting the know-it-alls who say a third party can't win tell me that I'd be throwing away my vote. I'm sick and tired of having to guess which guy will do the least harm when it comes time to vote for President.

Responses to some comments.
First let me say that I did a write in for president in 2004. Okay Bush or Kerry who would be worse as far as granting amnesty? The answer is you can not answer that question unless you answer who controls congress. For example, Kerry with a republican congress would probably get NOTHING. Remember, Clinton with a republican congress wanted amnesty and the republican congress would not give it to him. He went so far as to veto appropriations bills unles they contained amnesty and the republican congress would not give in. They kept passing CR's(continuing resolutions) to fund the government. On the other hand Bush with a republican congress has gotten pretty much whatever he wants.

As far as only holding senators responsible keep in mind 2 things.
1)only 1/3 of the senate is up for re- election and a lot of those seats are considered safe
2)Final passage of the conference report containing guest worker amnesty would have to be passed by both the full house and full senate. So the house would be just as responsible as the senate if it passes.

Does anybody here remember how Bush arm twisted 245i through the house without a floor debate? This requires 2/3 without a floor debate and a coalition of democrats and arm-twisted republicans passed it through the house.

So they could certainly engineer a way to use democrats and RINO's and/or safe seat republicans to pass guest worker amnesty, while having some house republicans oppose it so they can say to their constituents, "I voted against it."

And that s why a broader tool is required to stop guest worker amnesty.
If guest worker amnesty for illegal aliens becomes law I will vote against EVERY republican (at all levels) on the ballot on Election Day 2006"

Keep in mind if you are involved in this issue you are presumably here because you see this as the most important problem threatening our nation and there should be no conflict of interest.

I used to believe I would never vote Democrat, because they don't share my concerns, values, and principles. Now, neither do most Repubs.

But in the next few elections, I might have to make a statement against RINO's like John McCain.

Can he be beaten? probably not. But the smaller his margin of victory, the more he might have to worry next time around.

He might be getting to old to use as a good example, but in other offices, consider this: If you get rid of an encumbent, a semi-aging Republican, for example, what are the chances of him being elected for the same position in a later election?

Probably not good. If the Repubs elect someone later, it will probably be younger blood.

Impeachment procedings against the President might have a beneficial side effect: Hastening to win the war by smashing the enemy(and his stronghold cities) with overpowering force, that should have been done years ago.

If Bush is ejected with the war still incomplete, then the next Dem. administration can plan to LOSE the war in the manner which will:


A. ensure their continuing power.

AND

B. Cement in history, Prez Bush as the greatest loser in history(and thus elevating Bill Clinton into Sainthood).



It's academic though,the Impeachment would likely fail. If Repubs didn't have the balls to remove Clinton, No way they will remove Bush.


note: While writing this, I have come to this conclusion that removing Bush, or beginning the procedings, would not have TOO negative an effect on the war effort. Because ANY president (Dem or Rep) can win this war in a few days if he ,or she, turned to the Pentagon . And said , "You have the green light, Do what has to be done. Consult me only if you want to drop "the Bomb."

pa

dvd

Keep in mind if you are involved in this issue you are presumably here because you see this as the most important problem threatening our nation and there should be no conflict of interest.

Check out some of my previous post and you will see this is a one issue vote for me, that is... illegal immigration and these trade agreements which I believe are one and the same. Their goal, eliminate the middle class and erase our borders. Remember Bush said the Constitution is only a G D piece of paper.