Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Civil war looms for Republicans
The Chicago Sun Times ^ | ROBERT NOVAK

Posted on 06/28/2004 9:24:17 AM PDT by SlickWillard

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last
To: SlickWillard

We need to get rid of Bill Thomas whether Dubya is reelected or not.

Thanks for posting the article here.


21 posted on 06/28/2004 10:15:45 AM PDT by MagnusMaximus1 (Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

I am proud to be a Republican, and a religious skeptic by the way, who strongly opposes secularists. Even just from the point of view of party stewardship, Novak seems to be right on to condemn Thomas' machinations.


22 posted on 06/28/2004 10:34:45 AM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy

Thanks. I appreciate that comment, and I agree about Novak.


23 posted on 06/28/2004 10:43:42 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SlickWillard

Actually, it's not based on seniority at all. It used to be before the GOP came to power, but they wanted to keep RINOs out of power so they changed the rules so anyone can become a chair (based on either the leadership or the Republicans on the committee). One woman congresswoman from NJ (can't recall her name right now) retired in 2002 because of this. She was "in line" to be the chair, but was passed over.


24 posted on 06/28/2004 10:48:09 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
It used to be before the GOP came to power, but they wanted to keep RINOs out of power so they changed the rules so anyone can become a chair (based on either the leadership or the Republicans on the committee).

So what are the new rules, and what procedures do they set for the ouster of a committee chair?

25 posted on 06/28/2004 10:56:42 AM PDT by SlickWillard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SlickWillard
Bill Thomas - Country Club Republican has again proven that his kind will do or say anything to make sure that they get an invite to the next left-wing golf foursome.
It is time that the Republican leadership put people like Bill Thomas out of any chairmanships.
26 posted on 06/28/2004 10:57:49 AM PDT by YOUGOTIT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SlickWillard

Probably the same-- either the House leadership or a vote of the GOP on the committee.


27 posted on 06/28/2004 10:58:47 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SlickWillard

An interesting mix of comments here. The GOP cheerleaders can't stand the thought of Novak criticizing their beloved club...er...party. I would say that the comments posted to this thread alone prove Novak's point.

The country-clubbers thought they had pushed all those pesky conservatives out back in 1964 following the Goldwater mess. Then along comes Reagan and not only does he bring back the conservatives, but he puts the GOP back in power after the clubbers handed us the twin debacles of Nixon and Ford. Once again, the country-clubbers thought they had a leash on Reagan when they saddled him with George Bush, the ultimate clubber. Unfortunately for them, their boy couldn't hold on to the White House and they never did quite rid themselves of the conservatives.

Novak is absolutely right. There is a civil war brewing of the same proportions as the original GOP split from the Whigs. One can only wonder who will come out on top.


28 posted on 06/28/2004 11:00:31 AM PDT by NCSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SlickWillard

Wow...almost 30 posts and no one's added "FRUITCAKE" to the keywords. :-)


29 posted on 06/28/2004 11:02:51 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

Now raising its ugly head is Socialistic Darwinism----survival of the fittest----where the strongest survive at the expense of the weak (the practice thrives in the Mideast cesspool). Survival measures are the most primitive and basic: The most cunning and depraved individuals---obsessed with their own interests---survive by back-stabbing and co-opting the weak and law-abiding.

Sounds familiar, eh? Socialistic Darwinism's survival methodologies reek with the tactics of the obsessed Clinton admin's scorched earth policies to save itself---by any means necessary---from political disgrace and the rule of law.


30 posted on 06/28/2004 11:07:44 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SlickWillard

It's time for Christian Republican's and their Churches and Clergy to demand equal rights with liberal Democrats-this double standard has gone on way too long.


31 posted on 06/28/2004 11:13:00 AM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (Kerry is a real uniter-remember how he united the VC and our loonie left, against the USA?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Wow...almost 30 posts and no one's added "FRUITCAKE" to the keywords. :-)

"Fruitcake" as in Sandy Hume or Bill "Mr. Susan Molinari" Paxon?

32 posted on 06/28/2004 11:14:35 AM PDT by SlickWillard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SlickWillard

Have we all forgotten Rep. Thomas' blubbering apology to the meanest man in Congress, Fourtney Stark?


33 posted on 06/28/2004 11:16:33 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SlickWillard

To be fair, it was apparently Rep. Scott McInnis that Fourtney called a "fruitcake," but it was related to Rep. Thomas' move to have Capitol police throw the Democrats out of a congressional library.


34 posted on 06/28/2004 11:25:41 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Liz
[ Now raising its ugly head is Socialistic Darwinism----survival of the fittest ]

I could appreciate survival of the fittest.. In Congress and D.C. in general it is the opposite. Survival of the weakest. Who can say that Kerry or Bush even are Americas best and brightest. Consider Dole and Dubyas daddy, Gore, Dukakis, Clinton both of them.. weak. A Newt Gingrich who is strong, basically "mooned" us all as he left the game. The fittest don't want the jobs because it takes a fortune to run for a job that don't pay well, only to receive abuse for makeing any move, forward or back..

Americas best and brightest are too bright to run. SOooo, Survival of the fittest is the opposite paradigm of the current political spectrum. At least it looks that way to me. Actually to run for a political position seems to speak of brain damage, or some other mental dysfunction.. not survival of the fittest but survival of those in political denial. Except for the democrats. They know exactely were they are going most of them, except for Zell Miller.. who is a really confused individual.. If not he would have left the democrats many years ago.. he did'nt, still has'nt.

Poor Zell. Sure the choir loves him, but the boy is very confused. So are the pubbies, hes a keynote speaker at the republican confab soon.. instead of NON-confused individuals... Survival of the mentally weakest is the current republican taste. ALL democrats are very weak or they would'nt be democrats at all. Most republicans are weak and a pox on you if you have any stones, a backbone, or even a tongue.

35 posted on 06/28/2004 11:42:27 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SlickWillard
I read some of the comments that have been posted, in response to your posting of the reasonably apt comments of Robert Novak, with some sadness. Robert Novak is an intelligent moderate Conservative. What possible reason does any one, who claims to be a Conservative, have for rejecting his comments on any basis other than specific disagreement?

Do some of those who automatically reject a writer's views, based solely on whether he agrees or disagrees with Republican policies of the moment, realize how their comments read to other people, just surfing by? Do they consider how such knee jerk reactions communicate the very worst possible image of Republicans in general, and supporters of the in group of the party in particular? Does anyone think that a totally closed-mind, whose views of personalities and issues at least appear to be driven by the interests of a particular faction of a particular party, resonates well with anyone not equally emeshed in the interests of that faction?

George Washington specifically warned against this factionalized party mindset. I would suggest that before anyone claims to be a spokesman or spokeswoman for Conservative values, they read Washington's comments, and reflect accordingly. (See Farewell Address.)

William Flax

36 posted on 06/28/2004 1:25:11 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: everyone

Novak is a gloomy sort, and most of his columns are no fun to read because of this. But his knowledge of what's going on is formidable. We ignore him at our peril.

This particular column seems quite fact-oriented, and if true, it is dismaying. We cannot stick our heads in the sand about betrayals by our party's "leadership." When we do, it only invites more betrayal.


37 posted on 06/28/2004 1:39:48 PM PDT by California Patriot (California Patriot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Coop

I am just shocked at Novak -- just shocked! (sarcasm) What I would be shocked at is if he wrote a positive article! :)


38 posted on 06/28/2004 3:06:33 PM PDT by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Oklahoma is Reagan Country and now Bush Country -- Win Another One for the Gipper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SlickWillard

Reading Novak is like reading Buchanan ... it's pretty serpentine stuff. I've learned to avoid them for very much.


39 posted on 06/28/2004 3:07:45 PM PDT by No Dems 2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GatorGirl; maryz; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; Askel5; livius; goldenstategirl; ...

Another assault FROM the GOP on religion and free speech.


40 posted on 06/28/2004 3:11:42 PM PDT by narses (If you want ON or OFF my Catholic Ping List email me. +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson