Thread: Republican Party is the driving force for amnesty

2ndamendsis,

What you are saying makes good sense on the surface and seems fair and I agree that sometimes that is deinitely the way to proceed. But not this time and here is why. We must look deeper. (Hint:Remember how bush got 245i through the House in 2002)
I am not going to go into the 2000 redistricting strategy or how many seats in the house are actually in play for now. That will be brought into the equation later. For now I just want to prove my point at the simplest level.

We know that Bush wants amnesty and the house is considered to be the biggest obstacle. We also know the bush and the republicans want to keep their majority. So if we are to vote on a case by case basis, how can bush get amnesty without losing seats?? Simple, use mostly democrats. He needs 218 votes. Lets say he gets 150D and 68R.
Employing the strategy of voting on a case by case basis, bush just tricked the voters into voting against 150D, and only 68R. Not only will he have duped the voters into accepting amnesty without losing R seats he may GAIN R seats........big big dupe So we need a move strong enough to counter this as to make amnesty expensive for the R party and cost them the majority instead of preserving or adding to the R majority.


This we can entertain at a later time if necessary:
There is more to it of course, like how many seats out of the 435 are actually in play.(and which ones) Depending who you talk to the numbers range from 20-40. Easily enough to change the majority. There is of course the possibility of a ground swell similar to 1994. With the R redistricting strategy of 2000, base turnout voting R is CRITICAL to their success. In 2000 the dems employed a poor re-districting strategy making safe seats safer where as the R gambled a bit and went for close wins based on reliable conservatibe base turnout voting R. Without that base turnout voting R, the R's are in trouble. A small percentage of projected base withdrawn can be decisive.

So everyone, in the closely divided electorate that we are in EVERY VOTE COUNTS. The price of amnesty must be loss of the majority or else amnesty is free.

So what you said makes perfect sense in a stand alone environment such as individual innings in a baseball game.
Namely,
"To vote against a person who stood firm against amnesty "in any form," took the heat, held their ground, is punishing a potential good guy for doing the "right thing." Foolish and, to me, shows lack of vision.

But if your goal is to win the game it must be viewed differently. Of course there is a simple solution. NO AMNESTY. But IF amnesty becomes law I will vote against erery R on the ballot and support the position that the price of amnesty should be loss of the R majority.

It's all about ONE party with two different names. I spoke at length with Constitution Party chairman Scott Bartlett yesterday and even he said there is no way around it - Democrats will win the next election hands down. I prodded him, asking how he could say such a thing when his own party is a viable alternative for people to vote a third party. The response was that people are simply blinded to the alternative, and people are too divided and fragmented to line up behind any given third-party.

Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minutemen has made mention, though never guaranteed, to run for president in 2008 via the Constitution Party. If he does, it is my humble opinion that the Constitution Part is where we should be. Not just for the Presidential, Congressional and Senatorial federal offices but also local and state offices as well. Having a third-party president would still be unproductive if he doesn't have a local and state infrastructure of same-party candidates to support him.

It really is a difficult thing to get a third-party majority in any government venue. But is it what American needs - and NOW? Yes, it certainly is. Otherwise the "Great American Selloff" will continue behind the banner of the one party with two names.

concernedveteran,
What do you think of this? This campaign started a while back. Instead of Independent Party, the Constitution Party can be substituted.

Open letter to Congressional Republicans who “say” they oppose AMNESTY for illegal aliens

Not ONE of you is proven in the moment of heat.
The time has come for you to show what you are made of.

Form a coalition of Congressman/woman and go to Speaker Hastert and TELL him that if tries to force through amnesty that you have a coalition that will SWITCH PARTIES to independent causing the Republicans to lose the majority and electing Congresswoman Pelosi as Speaker of the House. When this happens you will have a 3 party House and you may end up working on what you should be working on. IMPEACHMENT.


Failure to do so demonstrates that you are a fraud and are unworthy of support for re-election and may only postpone the republicans losing the House until election day. The PRICE of amnesty is republicans losing the House and betrayed conservatives can make that happen even with what you think are gerrymandered districts!!!!!!!Remember the 2002 mid term elections? It was a lot of close wins for republicans decided by ONLY 1.5% of the simple electorate. If your base don’t show up and vote R you lose the House even with your gerrymandered district lines.

Originally Posted by concernedveteran

it is my humble opinion that the Constitution Part is where we should be. Not just for the Presidential, Congressional and Senatorial federal offices but also local and state offices as well. Having a third-party president would still be unproductive if he doesn't have a local and state infrastructure of same-party candidates to support him.

It really is a difficult thing to get a third-party majority in any government venue. But is it what American needs - and NOW? Yes, it certainly is. Otherwise the "Great American Selloff" will continue behind the banner of the one party with two names.

I think you're right. Any change in political parties needs to start at the local and state level -- when these are in power it will make it easier to go to the federal level. IMHO, the republican and democratic parties will be a non-issue before too much longer -- People Power will take their place

I frankly don't give a flying freak which party any one is from these days. I will support any person who is against amnesty, against globalism, against big government, etc. There are Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Constitutionalists, and so on who feel this way. The labels don't matter. It's substance that matters. Before I vote again, I'm doing my homework. I never want to be fooled again, by anyone.

Originally Posted by Mamie

Originally Posted by concernedveteran

it is my humble opinion that the Constitution Part is where we should be. Not just for the Presidential, Congressional and Senatorial federal offices but also local and state offices as well. Having a third-party president would still be unproductive if he doesn't have a local and state infrastructure of same-party candidates to support him.

It really is a difficult thing to get a third-party majority in any government venue. But is it what American needs - and NOW? Yes, it certainly is. Otherwise the "Great American Selloff" will continue behind the banner of the one party with two names.

I think you're right. Any change in political parties needs to start at the local and state level -- when these are in power it will make it easier to go to the federal level. IMHO, the republican and democratic parties will be a non-issue before too much longer -- People Power will take their place

Well Mamie, to be what I feel is being totally honest here, it is the ONLY chance we have left. And quite frankly, I do sympathize with both good Republicans AND Democrats! Both parties originated with varying viewpoints, but they were somewhat respectable variances at the time of inception for both sides. The problem is that both have deepened their variances to sway to the extreme on both sides. I've always been a Republican and it saddens me greatly to find myself with the consideration of switching! However, I know it is what must be done.

There are extremist ways and there are Constitutional ways. When you have two mainline parties who have deteriorated so far that BOTH are whittling away at the Constitution, neither party can be trusted with what this nation was founded upon.

My father likes to make the argument that there is nothing that can be done to stop this because government is a reflection of the morals and resolve of the United States citizens' majority. He proclaims loudly that if a nation for the most part reveres their history and the blessings bestowed upon it by God (remember - God bless America?) then the nation maintains a healthy government. But he also feels that if the majority of people either turn their backs on the morals which made our nation so great - OR if the people sit idly by while allowing immoral behavior to expand without taking a stand agaist it - both situations make the people "guilty as charged" an will result in a morally bankrupt and featureless government system which, again, is the reflection of those who establish it in this day and age.

Thus far, neither the Republican party nor the Democratic part have made any effort to return to their original moral underpinnings. They continue to snuff their noses at it. If the majority of the American people still have their moral underpinnings, we have a government which has been taken over by big money and a MINORITY of people with a severe lack of morals and civil responsibility. And if those good men and women simply sit back and remain apathetic and idle while permitting the minority and big business (lobbies) to tighten the rope around our necks, we deserve all that we had coming. It remain ignorant and passive makes one just as guilty as if he/she was participating with a morally bankrupt minority. To be permissive toward a moral bankrupt minority is to make that minority into a MAJORITY - and it is an overnight success.

I realize those who have deeply held sentiments to their "old parties" will be very pessimistic in leaving them, now isn't the time for such deeply held convictions when it is quite obvious these "old parties" have been corrupted beyond repair!

I've been calling as many folks as possible who belong to the Constitution party to ask them their feelings and thoughts on several moral issues and what they feel is "wrong" with the major two-party system. Thus far, the Constitution party has impressed me. And this is coming from a person who has held deep convictions for "my party" all these years!

I honestly feel that if people would write members of the Constitution party as well as calling some themselves, they will discover that this party does in fact resonate with the moral aptitude of the majority who has simply been squelced recently.

Research the Constitution Party and tell me if I am wrong! But please don't try to make a judgement until you've done your due diligence in contacting and researching this party to find it's strengths and weaknesses.

Personal Source: Scott Bartlett, Chairperson, Constitution Party
Constitution Party website: http://www.constitutionparty.com/

Kurt

My first option will be who voted against amesty and close the border. So far only one candidate has voted against the Senate Bill. And he is a Republican. The challenger who is a Democrat has not made his position clear as of yet. The only statement that I can find is that he favors a modified (whatever that means). That's enough for me to vote against the Democrat. NO AMESTY is my vote (No modifications). I am looking into the candidates from the Constitution Party to try and find more before making my final decision. Here in PA it will be difficult for a 3rd Party to get on the ballot because of current laws. 66,000 signatures will be needed to get on the ballot. I am a registered Democrat, but have always voted for the lesser of two evils in the past. Regretably I did vote for George Bush because I didn't feel that Kerry or Core had anything better to offer the country.

CLOSE THE BORDER AND NO AMESTY!

Originally Posted by nittygritty

I got a feeling he won't ever answer that question! As for me, I will continue to be behind my republican leaders who voted no to the amnestey bill! I would rather shoot myself in the head then be on the same side as Teddy, Schumer, Boxer. Fienstien, the list goes on and on and on! I will let dxd have them along with that twerp, Howard Dean

I totally agree! Cutting ones nose off dispite their face is not a smart thing to do.

As was stated, working on the grass roots, local and state level for good, no amnesty canididates, is where to start.

Originally Posted by native

Originally Posted by nittygritty

I got a feeling he won't ever answer that question! As for me, I will continue to be behind my republican leaders who voted no to the amnestey bill! I would rather shoot myself in the head then be on the same side as Teddy, Schumer, Boxer. Fienstien, the list goes on and on and on! I will let dxd have them along with that twerp, Howard Dean

I totally agree! Cutting ones nose off dispite their face is not a smart thing to do.

As was stated, working on the grass roots, local and state level for good, no amnesty canididates, is where to start.

My sentiments exactly. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Some Republicans stink, almost all Democrats stink. I'll look at each candidate individually.

I'm guessing with your lack of responce that you would rather kennedy or Salazar be in the whitehouse than Tancredo or Sessions