The Conservative Crack Up

Saw an interesting article over on MSNBC by Howard Fineman. The Conservative Crack Up

He outlines what is becoming apparent, the GOP is going through some sort of splintering and is turning on the Administration at the moment. Whether or not you agree with his statements or conclusions, he does a good job of breaking this down by the different factions and examining each. About the only group left that he identifies as not being disillusioned is the "supply siders."

The interesting part for me is the alleged shift of the neo-cons to a "Blame the Administration" approach for Iraq. I think this might be premature, but I do expect it to happen (I came to that conclusion months ago.) Unless something substantial changes in Iraq for the better, various factions are going to seek to distance themselves from the President.

Fineman certainly has hit the nail on the head with respect to the religious conservatives' recent unrest. The disillusion that has resulted from the Harriet Miers nomination has been surprising to me--but quite apparent both on the news, and here in the Backroom. Used to be that a wink from Bush, and mentioning she is an "evangelical christian" would have done the trick.

The isolationist section brings up another common thread here in the Backroom. The immigration policy is a sore spot.

The corporate CEO type is an interesting twist. Can't say that I'm sure about that one way or the other.

Smaller govt/deficit types are of course very concerned and have been becoming increasingly vocal over the past year. They had no voice when it really mattered and Greenspan virtually endorsed Dubya's wreckless policies until recently...so here we sit, in the very mess that many of us with mathematical skills predicted back in 2000.

To some degree the current party debate has a "Tower of Babble" aspect to it since it is coming from so many directions (yes, the spelling was intentional.) ~;) Despite the poke of fun, I think this is good for the GOP and the nation, to actually have some dissension rather than behaving as a Borg-like entity. The question is: what will coalesce out of the dissension? Who knows, a group could emerge that I actually agree with.

it's an interesting link but i've been burned before by some of these "predict the future" articles. discussing "what if" is always fun, but I'd like to see some more links/sources that support specific allegations.

i posted a thread elsewhere that basically had a bunch of pundits saying, "They're infighting," but once again it was people whose jobs are to exploit such speculation.

There is a huge crack up. With the recent Supreme Court appointment, the bumbling of the war on terror, the mishandling of recent domestic issues, etc, its no surprise that there is much in-fighting. Bush and the Republican party has left me much like how many Democrats feel left by their party.

Quote:

---

All of you who think that this dissension in the ranks is going to lead to the destruction of the so-called conservative movement or the Republican Party? Unh-uh. I want to remind you that what's happening right now is that conservatives who have held their nose for a number of years over a lot of things, finally have reached a tipping point. The last time the conservative movement unified like this, and the last time that it insisted and the last time it said, "Okay, you know, we've been doormats and we've been nice guys. We've been getting you elected, but then you turn around and turn into your old country club blue-blooder self."

The last time this happened was 1976, with the attempt to get Ronald Reagan nominated to the Republican presidential nomination, at the convention in Detroit in -- or not Detroit, where was it? It was Detroit in '80, but in 1976, he failed to Gerald Ford, but that led to 1980. I said yesterday that if any of the liberals in this audience are sitting out there all giddy and rubbing your hands together in glee thinking that this rift means the end of your opposition, think again, because the last time this happened it led to two landslides: 1980 and 1984. The fact of the matter is that it's conservatives who elect Republicans in this country, and when the conservatives get plastered enough, mad enough, they get in gear, and things change for the better. So I totally reject the notion. The Republican Party may be damaging itself, but I don't look at that as the conservative movement, which is not a party, damaging itself. I think there are some Republicans here who are doing things they really don't want to do, saying things they really don't want to say, saying things they regret having to say. But they have to say them. It's their job. But I think what's going to happen here is a stronger movement when this is all said and done. Conservatism is about a set of principles and a core set of beliefs, and you don't settle. You don't sell them out, and if at times you do, then the day is going to come when you say, "Not anymore. I'm not doing it anymore," and we may be close to one of those moments now.

---

LINK

Gawain,

Rush's attempts aside, there are a lot of things going on, and if you check the polls you will find widespread discontent with the GOP, the GOP House, the GOP Senate, and the GOP President. Those independents and moderates that were voting Republican? They are angry/disgusted. This isn't just a case of bickering inside the party, it is a case of much of the party's platform becoming unpopular in light of events of the past few years.

While the religious conservative block is indeed the largest single group in the U.S., they are still a plurality, not a majority and they can't elect anyone without help. I encourage the GOP to pull even harder to the religious right (as Limbaugh seems to imply is the answer), I think they will find quite a few of their present constituents won't make the corner.

Rush is 100% wrong on at least one aspect. Conservatives don't elect presidents. They didn't elect Carter, they didn't elect Clinton (twice.) Independents and moderates do that, and they also elect the Reagan's and Bushes. While the religious conservatives are upset about Miers, the rest of the country is upset about a host of other things, and not the "we aren't conservative enough" issues. There is widespread discontent about Iraq, domestic security, disaster response, international relations, the budget, the economy, and energy.

What is really funny is that Rush is saying that conservatives are "uniting." He couldn't be more wrong. This is more a case of the different groups all having *separate* beefs. If the conservatives are uniting, then it is much the same way that Iraqi's are "uniting" in their efforts to produce a constitution. It is too early to say whether or not they will eventually unite.

Most importantly, Rush is missing the point. This isn't about conservatives. This is about the nation. The nation has lost faith in this Presidency and GOP House and Senate. The nation also realizes that the conservatives have been the last to notice...

Quote:

---

there are a lot of things going on, and if you check the polls you will find widespread discontent with the GOP, the GOP House, the GOP Senate, and the GOP President

---

Yup but its because hes not conservative enough. The tide has turned my friend and your swimming against it. Were tired of them acting just like deomcrats . Its time to do the things he was put into office to do. As they say shite or get off the pot. Rush was spot on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Yup but its because hes not conservative enough. The tide has turned my friend and your swimming against it. Were tired of them acting just like deomcrats . Its time to do the things he was put into office to do. As they say shite or get off the pot. Rush was spot on.

---

The tide has definitely turned, but you and Rush are misreading which way it has turned. Conservatives have finally hit high tide, now the water is going back out. ~:wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

The tide has definitely turned, but you and Rush are misreading which way it has turned. Conservatives have finally hit high tide, now the water is going back out. ~:wave:

---

LOL, you could only wish Red. This country is becoming more conservative and the GOP is not keeping up!!! Mark my words, The libs (dems) will still lose even more power and many RINOs in the Republican party will be replaced by even more conservative party members then, in 10 years or so, the libertarians will be the other power party besides the Republicans. The dems will be no more.~:cheers:

I think what it comes down to, is that the 2 party system of the US is flawed. The various political, moral and economical beliefs people have simply cannot be divided in just 2 different choices.

People who would vote republican include:
- people who want a strong no-nonsense leaders
- fiscal conservatives, people who believe the government should but out off economical affairs, meaning no subsidizing of any industries, no tarrifs etc
- the religious right, people who believe homosexuals should be stoned, God intended America to rule the world, etc
- people who think democrats are liberal weeners and can't find anything else to vote for

People who would vote democrat include:
- people who think that taking care of the poor is a government responsibility
- "liberals", people who are for the right to abortion, support gay rights, etc
- people who are non-interventionist (nowadays anyway. most people who opposed the Iraq invasion)
- people who think that republicans are elitist corporate leeches, and can't find anything selse to vote for

It just seems like the previous elections Gore-Bush and Bush-Kerry people just voted for their candidate because he isn't the other guy. Hell, the general slogan for the democrats was "anything but Bush". If people vote for one guy just because he's the most tolerable choice, something is wrong with the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Germaanse Strijder

If people vote for one guy just because he's the most tolerable choice, something is wrong with the system.

---

Hardly... That is how I look at my choices right now, and I had 11 parties to choose from.
The general informed voter will always be dissatisfied. Why? Because every time we vote we make a compromise. I make a compromise when I select a candidate to vote for. That candidate then makes a few compromises for his/her party so they can function as a group, then that party makes a compromise with another or more parties to get into government. Often here that is a minority government (they don't hold half+ seats in parliament), so they have to make yet more compromises (to other parties to give them the majority needed) to get it to fit...

Endresult: I didn't vote for the result, but eventually it was moved far away from my view.

okay now we're getting some other sources on this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/krwashbureau...u/_bush_jinx_1

Here's a good Washington Post article on a shift in power amongst the House Republicans. When DeLay stepped down, apparently the fiscal conservatives found their backbones.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101601055.html

I think this pretty much sums it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh

I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.


We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our principles. And that's the nature of our current debate over the nomination of Harriet Miers. Will she respect the Constitution? Will she be an originalist who will accept the limited role of the judiciary to interpret and uphold it, and leave the elected branches--we, the people--to set public policy? Given the extraordinary power the Supreme Court has seized from the representative parts of our government, this is no small matter. Roe v. Wade is a primary example of judicial activism. Regardless of one's position on abortion, seven unelected and unaccountable justices simply did not have the constitutional authority to impose their pro-abortion views on the nation. The Constitution empowers the people, through their elected representatives in Congress or the state legislatures, to make this decision.
Abortion is only one of countless areas in which a mere nine lawyers in robes have imposed their personal policy preferences on the rest of us. The court has conferred due process rights on terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay and benefits on illegal immigrants. It has ruled that animated cyberspace child pornography is protected speech, but certain broadcast ads aired before elections are illegal; it has held that the Ten Commandments can't be displayed in a public building, but they can be displayed outside a public building; and the court has invented rationales to skirt the Constitution, such as using foreign law to strike down juvenile death penalty statutes in over a dozen states.

For decades conservatives have considered judicial abuse a direct threat to our Constitution and our form of government. The framers didn't create a judicial oligarchy. They created a representative republic. Our opposition to judicial activism runs deep. We've witnessed too many occasions where Republican presidents have nominated the wrong candidates to the court, and we want more assurances this time--some proof. The left, on the other hand, sees the courts as the only way to advance their big-government agenda. They can't win national elections if they're open about their agenda. So, they seek to impose their policies by judicial fiat. It's time to call them on it. And that's what many of us had hoped and expected when the president made his nomination.

Some liberal commentators mistakenly view the passionate debate among conservatives over the Miers nomination as a "crackup" on the right. They are giddy about "splits" in the conservative base of the GOP. They are predicting doom for the rest of the president's term and gloom for Republican electoral chances in 2006. As usual, liberals don't understand conservatives and never will.

The Miers nomination shows the strength of the conservative movement. This is no "crackup." It's a crackdown. We conservatives are unified in our objectives. And we are organized to advance them. The purpose of the Miers debate is to ensure that we are doing the very best we can to move the nation in the right direction. And when all is said and done, we will be even stronger and more focused on our agenda and defeating those who obstruct it, just in time for 2006 and 2008. Lest anyone forget, for several years before the 1980 election, we had knockdown battles within the GOP. The result: Ronald Reagan won two massive landslides.


The real crackup has already occurred--on the left! The Democratic Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean; billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer geeks like Moveon.org. It nominated John Kerry, a notorious Vietnam-era antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer. Its major spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy and new propagandists like Michael Moore. Its great presidential hope is one of the most divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton. And its favorite son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill Clinton.
The Democratic Party today is split over the war and a host of cultural issues, such as same-sex marriage and partial birth abortion. It wants to raise taxes, but dares not say so. It can't decide what message to convey to the American people or how to convey it. And even its once- reliable allies in the big media aren't as influential in promoting the party and its agenda as they were in the past. The new media--talk radio, the Internet and cable TV--not only have a growing following, but have helped expose the bias and falsehoods of the big-media, e.g., Dan Rather, CBS News and the forged National Guard documents. Hence, circulation and audience is down, and dropping.

The American left is stuck trying to repeat the history of its presumed glory years. They hope people will see Iraq as Vietnam, the entirety of the Bush administration as Watergate and Hurricane Katrina as the Great Depression. Beyond looking to the past for their salvation, the problem is that they continue to deceive even themselves. None of their comparisons are true. Meanwhile, we conservatives will continue to focus on making history.

---

http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/...l?id=110007417

If anybody is "cracked-up" It is certainly the left.

Baptist blacks and Catholic Mexicans VS Abortionists

Labor Unions VS Illegal Immigrants and their ilk

the total left-kook hijack VS rational moderates

Police Unions VS Black activists

etc

Miers is a meatshield, she's a dummy nominee. She's gonna be ripped to shreds, and then when a more conservative judge is nominated it can be claimed that an effort was made for bipartisanism

BTW Clarence Thomas is stupid. Read some of his opinions sometimes. Oh wait, he doesn't have any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Miers is a meatshield, she's a dummy nominee. She's gonna be ripped to shreds, and then when a more conservative judge is nominated it can be claimed that an effort was made for bipartisanism

---

I and the rest of conservative America hope you are right.

I guess this really does show the strength of the party.
It'll probably be alberto gonzalez next. Then we can have a friggin illegal immigrant flood. Oh wait. We already do. Maybe we'll just give mexico all of southern california, texas, arizona, new mexico... and whats that? You say the mexicans are creeping into the rest of the country? Hmmm. Say good bye to the America you were raised with and hello to the mexican republic of crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

I Maybe we'll just give mexico all of southern california, texas, arizona, new mexico... and whats that? You say the mexicans are creeping into the rest of the country? Hmmm. Say good bye to the America you were raised with and hello to the mexican republic of crap.

---

I say we start a mandatory minute-man program. A real one with rifle and atvs and infa-red. Pick off the first couple of illegals and they should slow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

I and the rest of conservative America hope you are right.

I guess this really does show the strength of the party.
It'll probably be alberto gonzalez next. Then we can have a friggin illegal immigrant flood. Oh wait. We already do. Maybe we'll just give mexico all of southern california, texas, arizona, new mexico... and whats that? You say the mexicans are creeping into the rest of the country? Hmmm. Say good bye to the America you were raised with and hello to the mexican republic of crap.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

If anybody is "cracked-up" It is certainly the left.

Baptist blacks and Catholic Mexicans VS Abortionists

Labor Unions VS Illegal Immigrants and their ilk

the total left-kook hijack VS rational moderates

Police Unions VS Black activists

etc

---

Aren't you late for your Klan meeting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Aren't you late for your Klan meeting?

---

*Ronin jumps into the closest trench and hopes to survive the carnage certain to ensue from that comment*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Aren't you late for your Klan meeting?

---

A touch harsh, perhaps, but I do believe that DA is trying to "stir the pot."

STFS:

Perhaps a solution involving less bloodshed? While preventing illegal immigration and deporting current illegals would be worthwhile (and a nice change from the actions of the previous 15 administrations), I have a few -- I think understandable -- qualms with gunning down mostly unarmed individuals who are trying to make a better life for themselves and their families. Stopping them yes, killing them no.

fixed your quote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Maybe we'll just give mexico back all of southern california, texas, arizona, new mexico.

---

Solly:

Be fair now, we took these territories as fairly as any other country's aggressive conquests -- and paid a little something for them, which is more than most did historically.

While we are at it we can give Florida back to the Spanish and the rest back to England and France.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

fixed your quote.

---

And the Spanish took it from the natives, who were constantly at war with each other.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

A touch harsh, perhaps, but I do believe that DA is trying to "stir the pot."

---

Nah, I was going for succinct, and humorous. ~:cool: If I had wanted be harsh I would have written what I was really thinking about the prominent xenophobic, bigoted, hate mongering segment of the conservative movement. ~;)

Quote:

---

I would have written what I was really thinking about the prominent xenophobic, bigoted, hate mongering segment of the conservative movement

---

Of course you never exactly say what it is they hate. But then youve made it very clear that you are indeed a man full of hate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Of course you never exactly say what it is they hate. But then youve made it very clear that you are indeed a man full of hate.

---

Gawain, here to illustrate that "it's the hit dog that yelps."

No im here to illustrate that you are indded the king of hypocrisy. Your constanly calling me and other conservatives haters all the while spewing your own brand of hate for us. I let your own words speak for you.

Quote:

---

Aren't you late for your Klan meeting?

---

Quote:

---

I was really thinking about the prominent xenophobic, bigoted, hate mongering segment of the conservative movement

---

And then of course theres your unbrideled hatred for Bush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

I and the rest of conservative America hope you are right.

I guess this really does show the strength of the party.
It'll probably be alberto gonzalez next. Then we can have a friggin illegal immigrant flood. Oh wait. We already do. Maybe we'll just give mexico all of southern california, texas, arizona, new mexico... and whats that? You say the mexicans are creeping into the rest of the country? Hmmm. Say good bye to the America you were raised with and hello to the mexican republic of crap.

---

Well most of it was Mexican before the US expanded there.

Why is there so much hatred in America? Both parties stand for exactly the same things. If Gore had won in 2000 then America would be in exactly the same place it is now, maybe with one or two minor superficial differences. Both sides have their shares of reasonable, sensible people, and their shares of idiots who shouldn't be allowed near anything sharp or delicate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

Well most of it was Mexican before the US expanded there.

Why is there so much hatred in America? Both parties stand for exactly the same things. If Gore had won in 2000 then America would be in exactly the same place it is now, maybe with one or two minor superficial differences. Both sides have their shares of reasonable, sensible people, and their shares of idiots who shouldn't be allowed near anything sharp or delicate.

---

Come on lets get the History Correct since we are throughing it out there.

The Spanish took it from the Natives in thier subjectation effort.
Spain lost it when Mexico Rebelled against the Spanish
Texas won its own independence from Mexico with the aid of United States citizens who flocked to the ranks of the rebellion.
Texas and Mexico fought an ongoing border skrimish with each other about where the border was suppose to be - Texas wanted it the Rio Grande, Mexico wanted it about 200 miles north (cant remember the name of the river right now) - the United States became involved once Texas joined the Union.

Quote:

---

During and after the war, many in the United States placed the majority of the blame for the Mexican-American War squarely on the shoulders of Mexico. There may be a grain of truth in this ultra-patriotic view (Combs 99). President Polk sent troops under General Zachary Taylor to the region between the Rio Grande and Nueces Rivers. Texas believed that its southern boundary was represented by the Rio Grande River. The Mexicans, however, did not acknowledge this boundary and instead believed that it was the Nueces River. So, the Americans believed they were on Texan (soon to be American) soil, while the Mexicans believed that the Americans were on Mexican soil (Lavender 130). When Mexican forces attacked the Americans in this region, Polk believed that Mexico "invaded our territory, and shed American blood upon the American soil" (Richardson 442). With this information in hand, Polk proceeded to ask the Congress for a declaration of war, which he received easily. However, according to Polk's diary and other sources, he planned to ask Congress for a declaration before word of the Mexican "attack" ever reached Washington (Quaife 386). Refuting this "Mexico's Fault" theory even more is the fact that the government of Mexico at this time was in a period of chaos (Garraty and Gay 811). Still, the attack proved an effective scapegoat for not only Polk, but many other pro-war politicians.

---

The Mexican-American War was fought and New Mexico, Arizona, California parts of Nevada, Utah, Colorado were ceded to the United States by Mexico as a result of the Peace Treaty. I also believe the United States might of made a cash payment to Mexico.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

The Mexican-American War was fought and New Mexico, Arizona, California parts of Nevada, Utah, Colorado were ceded to the United States by Mexico as a result of the Peace Treaty. I also believe the United States might of made a cash payment to Mexico.

---

We did. A further purchase was made years later to facilitate a railroad (The Gadsen Purchase; last segment of land acquired to form the continental 48).

As to returning land to the "original" owners, it called to mind a little ditty I enjoy:

Give Ireland back to the Irish/
Give Lappland back to the Lapps/
Give China back to the Chinese/
...and Yoko back to the Japs/

~:)

(Note: Sons and daughters of Nippon, I would not seriously advocate anything so heinous.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

No im here to illustrate that you are indded the king of hypocrisy. Your constanly calling me and other conservatives haters all the while spewing your own brand of hate for us. I let your own words speak for you.

And then of course theres your unbrideled hatred for Bush.

---

I don't hate the man, I hate his incompetence and his policies. You see, unlike certain conservatives, I'm less concerned about judging the man's morals, and more about his performance and the sort of tone he sets for the nation. His private life doesn't interest me. I oppose him and distrust him, it's not the same as hating him.

However, there is a recurring undercurrent in certain conservative's postings of bigotry bordering on racism. Nothing new, it was just as common in the workplace. When someone goes through a tirade of dividing us into ethnic groups throughout the U.S. (and immigrants) and then makes a moral judgement of the class of each as a whole, it deserves condemnation. I find the conservative brand of it just as annoying as when Farraquan or Sharpton or folks like that are behind it from the other side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

I don't hate the man, I hate his incompetence and his policies. You see, unlike certain conservatives, I'm less concerned about judging the man's morals, and more about his performance and the sort of tone he sets for the nation. His private life doesn't interest me. I oppose him and distrust him, it's not the same as hating him.

However, there is a recurring undercurrent in certain conservative's postings of bigotry bordering on racism. Nothing new, it was just as common in the workplace. When someone goes through a tirade of dividing us into ethnic groups throughout the U.S. (and immigrants) and then makes a moral judgement of the class of each as a whole, it deserves condemnation. I find the conservative brand of it just as annoying as when Farraquan or Sharpton or folks like that are behind it from the other side.

---

Yippee, another "conservatives are racists" post by Red Harvest. Please, **edited**. Your complete and utter ignorance is boring.

Hold on my half bred son has something to say to you...

ktt6yo7uoupp6-70o898ui0u0u0-i070i0-9iu86878897890i08i0-i0969iyouoipiiuyiyljolj.m;/j..,.
He's 2 and a half so let me translate he said, "Race baiters are losers that can't win arguements or elections so all they can do is call anyone that disagrees with them stupid or racist.

Thanks son...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

STFS:

Perhaps a solution involving less bloodshed? While preventing illegal immigration and deporting current illegals would be worthwhile (and a nice change from the actions of the previous 15 administrations), I have a few -- I think understandable -- qualms with gunning down mostly unarmed individuals who are trying to make a better life for themselves and their families. Stopping them yes, killing them no.

---

I tried the wall no one listend. Im not going to allow crap spew into my country

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Hold on my half bred son has something to say to you...

ktt6yo7uoupp6-70o898ui0u0u0-i070i0-9iu86878897890i08i0-i0969iyouoipiiuyiyljolj.m;/j..,.
He's 2 and a half so let me translate he said, "Race baiters are losers that can't win arguements or elections so all they can do is call anyone that disagrees with them stupid or racist.

Thanks son...

---

Of course, the race baiting charge falls flat, because it is certain conservative posters who seem so certain when they inject race into everything, like it is something we all understand and agree with. I'm left shaking my head.

Considering that the big change for the GOP was in embracing the Southern Strategy catering to racist elements opposing the civil rights movement, I'm on pretty firm ground.

You know their are bad things about immigrants. Especially ilegal immigrants.

BUT, they do so many jobs Americans would never want to do. They do them for low wages, and they are an essential part of the United States economy. I think we need to do a better job limiting the number of them coming in, but it's not too big of a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Of course, the race baiting charge falls flat, because it is certain conservative posters who seem so certain when they inject race into everything, like it is something we all understand and agree with. I'm left shaking my head.

Considering that the big change for the GOP was in embracing the Southern Strategy catering to racist elements opposing the civil rights movement, I'm on pretty firm ground.

---

Same crap spewing from your lieing hole. The only person that has an issue with race is you. GOP embracing the southern element? It was the GOP that signed the majority of the civil rights laws in the 60's, Jesse Jackson.

What's next Red, ur I mean, Jesse, the dikes in New Orleans was blown up by white Republicans, right? Let's hear some more of your brilliant insight into the mond of the conservative. This should be as intelligent as your usual rant. ~:handball:

This is a funny thread, continue!

Aaaah, idiots and lunatics... it would almost be funny if it wasn't so sad, how they waste their minds this way, ranting and bickering over things that will never matter. Hell... it doesn't matter. I'll be out, living my life, if you need me. ~:cheers:

The hit dogs sure are yelpin'!

DD, you are providing the perfect example of the conservative supremacist mentality that some possess. Keep it up, you are doing far more to demonstrate my point than what I could politely say in a forum. ~:cool:

No, not all conservatives think like this, but it is too common. It is exactly what I was talking about on the "quiet racism" theme in other threads. (In this case it is not so quiet. ~D ) And frankly, it embarrasses me as an American. It is one thing to have a given religious or economic bent, but the racial overtones are a big driver in the divisiveness of the current conservative movement. The GOP has taken the low road in this regard. :embarassed:

Jesse Jackson used to drive me up the wall, but he has mellowed some over the years. I can tolerate listening to him now, although I frequently don't agree with what he says. (My view of Jackson first mellowed a little back when he read "Green Eggs and Ham" on Saturday Night Live. For the first time he didn't seem to be taking himself so seriously. Similarly, my view of Dole improved when he went on SNL.)