Thread: Quitting The Republican Party

FYI, I was quite disappointed a month or two ago and then again recently when I just happened {divine intervention} to hear Allen. He really covered his tush with double talk about the "guest worker program," saying that he wasn't against it. blah blah - same garbage.

IMHO, he'll cave if pushed. That ended him for me. Once weak, always weak.

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

FYI, I was quite disappointed a month or two ago and then again recently when I just happened {divine intervention} to hear Allen. He really covered his tush with double talk about the "guest worker program," saying that he wasn't against it. blah blah - same garbage.

IMHO, he'll cave if pushed. That ended him for me. Once weak, always weak.

I don't know.

I wish he were more forceful in his rhetoric, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Mel Martinez ran as a an anti-terror, anti-amnesty, pro-life right-winger, and look how he turned out.

That's why you have to look to a politician's actions, rather than his or her words.

I guess we'll see what happens during this debate.

So far, Allen has been pretty good in that respect.

Isaakson-who used to be the typical mushy moderate, and was my least favorite choice to replace Zell Miller among the potential Republican candidates in GA-has turned out to be phenomenal once he was sworn into office, so you can't judge a book by its cover.

I know it's an old cliche, but occasionally it's true.

SHAPKA wrote:
Mel Martinez ran as a an anti-terror, anti-amnesty, pro-life right-winger, and look how he turned out.

That's why you have to look to a politician's actions, rather than his or her words.

DON'T.......do NOT mention Martinez to me! That's a curse word and then I'll have to give you a MOD EDIT
{I believe that speaks volumes}

As far as Allen, I believe you'll be disappointed in the end. Time should be fairly quick in the deciding.

I've been saying consistantly, each one must be scruitinized carefully. I've always loved the old yet truthful saying, "talk is cheap but actions tell the truth." {I revamped the last part, lol}

I've alway liked Allen but was never in trust with him. He bothers me and I can't yet put my finger on it.

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

SHAPKA wrote:
Mel Martinez ran as a an anti-terror, anti-amnesty, pro-life right-winger, and look how he turned out.

That's why you have to look to a politician's actions, rather than his or her words.

DON'T.......do NOT mention Martinez to me! That's a curse word and then I'll have to give you a MOD EDIT
{I believe that speaks volumes}

As far as Allen, I believe you'll be disappointed in the end. Time should be fairly quick in the deciding.

I've been saying consistantly, each one must be scruitinized carefully. I've always loved the old yet truthful saying, "talk is cheap but actions tell the truth." {I revamped the last part, lol}

I've alway liked Allen but was never in trust with him. He bothers me and I can't yet put my finger on it.

I don't think it's necessarily a matter of trust.

He seems to be a pretty trustworthy, reliable guy.

He just doesn't seem to have that...uh-oh, here comes that obnoxious catch-phrase again...GRAVITAS!

:P

Seriously though, there does seem to be a lack of heft whenever you look at Allen and hear him speak.

I want to see how well he does against James Webb in the general election. I was a bit skeptical of Allen before this amnesty abomination was reintroduced in the Senate, but I've grown less so as this debate has progressed. If he performs well against Webb-an impressive opponent-that might raise his standing in the eyes of voters, especially when compared to his potential adversaries, open borders, anti-gun, anti-speech nutbar John McCain, a.k.a. Capt. Queeg, and that pathetic invertebrate, Bill Frist.

Gravitas {ugh!}means squat
retoric bores me
doesn't matter if he's not forceful or is forceful in his demeaner

The only thing that matters is his committment to the Constitution. I'm not getting that read from him. Of course, time will tell the truth.

However,
I heard him backstep and that's all she wrote. Once I catch that little itty bitty slide.........I'm rarely wrong.........he's simply not committed which means he doesn't believe that America, her people and sovereignty come first, before politics, deals and buddies.

My mind is open but very cautiously. This is something that shouldn't be rashly decided.

You're right about that.

The whole Senate is a disgrace.

It's almost as if we're living in the dotage of the Roman Empire.

People buying seats, inviting the barbarians into the inner sanctum, corruption and vice reign.

I can't believe that the only barrier between us and this new America is Robert Byrd.

Originally Posted by Shapka

You're right about that.

The whole Senate is a disgrace.

It's almost as if we're living in the dotage of the Roman Empire.

People buying seats, inviting the barbarians into the inner sanctum, corruption and vice reign.

I can't believe that the only barrier between us and this new America is Robert Byrd.

BYRD........amazing, isn't it? I'm not so naive as to wonder what's up his sleeve.

Rome: this has been something that many have referrenced for years and years. History repeats itself which is why, in my personal opinion, it's been purposely decimated within the educational system.
"keep em ignorant and they're easier to control. Eliminates critical thinking."

The Democratic caucus could use a few more Byrds.

He was one of only two or three Dem. members to vote against the "hate crimes" extension supported by ninety percent of his colleagues. He's the only Democrat senator-to the best of my knowledge-who's opposed to racial and sex quotas, now that Fritz Hollings has retired. Plus, he voted for both of President Bush's SC nominees.

As much as I detest him, on the pivotal issues he's usually much better than the rest of his party in the Senate.

I know, isn't it amazing

Old kkk Byrd. Hope rigor doesn't set in just yet.
Never thought I'd say........GO BYRD! GIVE 'EM HELL!