Thread: What Republican will sell us out next?

CrocketsGhost, again, you are 100 % right, that is exactaly what I am going to do, vote strictly on the illegal immigrant issue. I will be waiting for that ALIPAC national voters guide that W. mentioned.
dxd, I am still waiting for your answer to the question I asked, will you vote for Tom Tancrado in 08?

nittygritty,
RE:will you vote for Tom Tancrado in 08?

May I very respectfully suggest that you really don't want to ask me that question?? If I were to entertain that I would have to tell you about the work I did in 2004 on the Tancredo for President write-in campaign. I would also have to tell you that several states supposedly contacted him and asked him if he wants the results in their state......And when this ball got rolling........ You may already know about the article he wrote where he said I am runing for congress. not President. ??????? When I spoke to his office about all this they said he is endorsing voting for Bush, not writing him in. I told them I will NOT vote for Bush and if he don't want to be written in I will write-in someone else. and so on but like I said this is a story you probably don't want to hear

Shapka's

How will voting for Ron Klein solve anything?

How will voting for Clay Shaw solve anything ?

dxd,

What is the numbersUSA grade for your favorite candidates? I'll show you mine, if you'll show me yours.

Dixie

Originally Posted by LegalUSCitizen

Shapka's

How will voting for Ron Klein solve anything?

How will voting for Clay Shaw solve anything ?

I'm not saying that it necessarily will.

From what I recall though he has a decent record on border and immigration issues.

I could be mistaken, or he could have changed allegiances, but something tells me that he is much better on this issue than Klein.

But even if he isn't-and you can't vote to re-elect him in good conscience-how does that make a vote for someone just as bad on immigration justifiable?

I'm just not following your reasoning.

If E. Clay Shaw has a good record, and is in a precarious position, i.e. he's the only Republican who can hold that seat, then how does voting against him make sense?

Actually, if you look at Clay Shaw's report card, it can look like it's good. But if you look at the fact that he is FOR any of these immigration bills it is bad.

Clay Shaw will follow the leader on this. He will vote in accordance to what GWB wants him to vote. He is not independent of President Bush on this issue. So it LOOKS like he's doing good but he really isn't.

Ron Klein, has said that he is against amnesty. He is PROBABLY just the same as Clay Shaw. I do not THINK that he is as bad as the typical Democrat. I talked to him in person about it and he seemed to understand and, yes maybe he is a good actor, but he SEEMED genuinely as though he cared and understands how Americans feel about this.

Then I saw him (Klein) on a local TV show and he talked about it again. My impression of him is that he is better than your typical Democrat. The main thing I don't trust about him is "that he's a Democrat". That's my biggest concern.

I know Clay Shaw is a "nice man", but he just goes along with the boys, and just going from what has happened to our district where I live .......this man has not taken this problem any more serious than his boss has.

I don't know what we should do here in Florida. It's like there's no good answer to this. More of the same and that will not do anymore.

Democrats in swing districts were told to vote for the House's enforcement-only bill, i.e. the Sensenbrenner bill.

Rahm Emmanuel-the head of the DCCC-told them explicitly to do so in order to have political cover against their Republican opponents in November.

I can only assume that Dem. challengers were told the same thing, i.e. look tough on the border issue, so you should take any statement they make on this subject with a grain of salt.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be skeptical of Republicans-especially after some of them tried to pull this Pence bullcrap-but to think that a Democrat would be as good, or better, than them-at least, as far as the House of Reps is concerned-is a dangerous assumption.

Salazar-the one in the House-even voted for the anti-amenesty, pro-border bill!

What does that tell you?

Look, as much as the Republicans have disappointed me of late I still say that they are better-in the long run-than the Democrats, who are bought and paid for by the pro-illegal, mechista lobby.

ALL of the Democrats, with a few notable exceptions, e.g. Gene Taylor, Robert Byrd, among others, who voted for the enforcement only bill in the House, or conversely, voted against the Senate's open borders bill, were doing so for political expediency.

On the other hand, the vast majority of House Republicans who voted in favor of securing our borders did so out of pure conviction.

There is a world of difference.

LegalUSCitizen,
REClay Shaw will follow the leader on this. He will vote in accordance to what GWB wants him to vote.

You got that right and that is my point. EVERY R congressman will roll over for GWB no matter how much WWF tough guy talk they talk. This has been demonstrated at the 2004 RNC convention in Manhattan.

What does the RNC have to do with this?

If anything Republican congressman are less obligated to President Bush, because:

A. His approval ratings are in the toilet, and signing on to his signature issue will mean political suicide in the current political climate,

and

B. Even if President Bush had a sixty percent approval rating it would not translate into political capital for an issue to which over seventy percent of the American public is adamently opposed.

Christopher Shays, weaselly, Rockefeller Republican, pro-abortion, Paul Newman sycophant, is OPPOSING amnesty, simply because of the robust opposition he found within his constituency.

What you're saying is complete and utter nonsense, with no basis in empirical data or actual concrete evidence.

RE:What you're saying is complete and utter nonsense, with no basis in empirical data or actual concrete evidence.

Were you at the RNC Convention in 2004 when this issue was "SUPPOSED" to be brought up by Tancredo on the floor and a team of activists was assembled to support him but then the immigration event got.... moved......hmmmm...... away to a restaurant. Were you a part of the group? If you were you already know that all R congressman are sellouts in the moment of heat....but if you weren't there...T went on CNN Lou Dobbs that very same evening

..and you want concrete evidence look up the CNN Lou Dobbs transcripts during the convention days and you will find Tancredo endorsing Bush. That was August 2004.