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

Skip to comments.

Bush has been a Moderate all Along (and He always campaigned as such )
RealClearPolitics.com ^ | 10/26/2005 | Ruben Navarrette Jr

Posted on 10/26/2005 10:17:22 AM PDT by SirLinksalot

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-88 last
To: AFPhys
I don't have to contribute to the stupidity though now do I? I will continue to vote for the candidate on the ballot whose views agree with mine, or if required write in the candidate whose views agree with mine. This was the intent of the Framers. Not some damn popularity contest between two party selected hacks.

National level is really a toss up but in most instances the best choice seems to be a Republican Congress and Democratic President. End effect is gridlock. They can't vote on how to waste the money or start wars for all the bickering. Or do you relish the fact that a Republican government in two branches has foisted over $1 trillion of domestic waste on us for the foreseeable future?

51 posted on 10/26/2005 11:30:07 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
Really? Like Reagan?

Reagan never got spending ...

Reagan appointed...

Reagan gave back tax...

Reagan cut and ran...

Reagan gave amnesty...

Reagan named moderate...[big mistake]..

Reagan never hit hard..

Don't get me wrong -- I LOVED RR

Yeah, right. We can tell by your posting of a pissing all over a Reagan's grave reply. Do you love Bush so much, that you are willing to turn your back on Ronald Reagan?

52 posted on 10/26/2005 11:32:52 AM PDT by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
"Right again. "W's" actions and PR during hurricane Katrina were classic, clueless, "Bush"."

Being in Mississippi, and affected in the extreme by Katrina, and having been right next to this man and benefiting from his efforts... I'd say on this point, YOU are WRONG!

LLS
53 posted on 10/26/2005 11:40:48 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: penowa
"Centrists win elections." If that were true, Carter and Clinton never would have been president. Candidates on the left who pretend to be centrists win elections if they dupe enough fools into voting for them.

That's exactly what happened in both cases. Carter was considered a moderate in comparison to McGovern, Humphrey, Udall, etc. No, he was no Scoop Jackson or George Wallace -- but that wing of the 'Rat Party is gone and the 1976 Carter was pretty close to 1992 Zell Miller. Carter himself has drifted Left since his political demise in 1980.

As for Bubba, he invented running as a centrist. He came to fame via the DLC. After the 1994 debacle, Morris convinced him to head more towards the center. In fact, his signing of welfare reform was more conservative than liberal.

I had no use for Presidents Carter or Clinton, but they governed much farther from their Left Base than Bush is from his Right.

54 posted on 10/26/2005 11:41:09 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats (Lashed to the USS George W. Bush: "Damn the Torpedos, Full Miers Ahead!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Centrists win elections.

Only because that's who both parties consistently put up for election.

I'm done playing their game and will now vote for someone who actually supports my positions. If the Republicans don't want to throw the White House to Hillary than they can either nominate a real conservative. If they don't then they shouldn't complain when the conservatives in the party stop marching in lockstep to the left with them.

55 posted on 10/26/2005 11:55:36 AM PDT by ksen ("For an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no Plan B's" - Frumanchu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
Actually Reagan IMHO governed to the Right of Bush. The point of my post was to show that even the man widely considered to be the greatest Conservative President in the modern era (or maybe ever) took some actions and decisions that could be criticized from the Right. Some were politically necessary, some were compromises, and some were misjudgements.

I'm not the one turning my back on a Republican President. I haven't threatened to leave the party, contributed to attack ads, or derided his supporters as bots. IMHO Reagan and GWB were and are Great Presidents -- GHWB less so and Carter, Clinotn and LBJ were each disasters. (Nixon is more complex).

56 posted on 10/26/2005 11:56:51 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats (Lashed to the USS George W. Bush: "Damn the Torpedos, Full Miers Ahead!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: billbears

Do whatever you like, as you will.

Unless you work toward getting someone who can be elected nominated in one of the two major parties, know that it is irrelevant, and I have no doubt you do know that. Your "libertarian", "green", "constitution", "conservative", "liberal" vote means precisely zero to how nominations get done, and who becomes elected in this country. No level-headed Republican strategist ever looks at such voters saying "what can we do to gain their vote" because there is no net gain by doing so.

This is precisely why I don't make any effort to sway such people. Bluster doesn't help. Working, as I've done for forty years now, to nominate and elect at least a marginally more conservative Republican can help change this country, and it has done more than all the libertarians or self-described "conservatives" combined have accomplished.


57 posted on 10/26/2005 11:57:55 AM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: ksen

"Only because that's who both parties consistently put up for election. "

And why is that, do you suppose? Remember Goldwater? I do.


58 posted on 10/26/2005 11:58:09 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer
Being in Mississippi, and affected in the extreme by Katrina,...

All I could know was what the rest of the country was seeing and reading on tv and the net. Bush may have been doing the right things, but more importantly, a leader has to be seen doing the right things. This, Bush did not do, just as his father didn't with hurricane Andrew in FL. It is a blind spot the Bush's have.

BTW, I wish you a speedy recovery from your afflictions caused by Katrina.

59 posted on 10/26/2005 12:00:21 PM PDT by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

I noticed the author characterized conservatives disgruntled with GWB as "neocons." I supported William Knowland for Governor of California in 1958; and voted for Nixon and Goldwater for president in 1960 and 1964, respectively. Not just neocons out here. But W was never more than a Hobson's choice to me.


60 posted on 10/26/2005 12:00:44 PM PDT by luvbach1 (Near the belly of the beast in San Diego)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ksen
If they don't then they shouldn't complain when the conservatives in the party stop marching in lockstep to the left with them.

That type of mentality led to many misguided souls deserting GHWB and voting for Perot. Are you glad that Darth Vader Ginsberg and Steve "Foreign Law" Breyer are on SCOTUS?

61 posted on 10/26/2005 12:01:02 PM PDT by You Dirty Rats (Lashed to the USS George W. Bush: "Damn the Torpedos, Full Miers Ahead!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

"The fact remains, we're still not sure who was to blame for the Marine barracks bombing."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1449535/posts

1983, Oct 23
"Beirut, Lebanon A truck drove to HQ, U.S. Marines. The driver gunned his engine, crashed through a barbed-wire fence, passed between two sentry posts, crashed through a gate, and barreled into the lobby. The Marine sentries did not have loaded weapons and were unable to shoot the driver. (According to one Marine, the driver was smiling as he sped past him.) The suicide bomber detonated his truck. The force collapsed the four-story cinder-block building.About 20 seconds later, an identical attack occurred on the French paratroop barracks. ***It was the deadliest single-day death toll for the American military since World War II.*** 299 Dead

Hezbollah, backed by Iran and Syria, were responsible."
299 Dead


62 posted on 10/26/2005 12:02:07 PM PDT by Just A Nobody ("The Constitution: It ain't long. It ain't complicated and only idiot lawyers can make it so." A D)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
About a year ago, I wrote a column in which I described Bush as a moderate, and a lot of Democrats wrote back and suggested it was a joke. Now there aren't many Republicans who are laughing.

Interesting. Ping for later reading.

63 posted on 10/26/2005 12:04:56 PM PDT by Alex Murphy (Psalm 73)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elbucko

LSM hype is all. Thank you my brother Conservative, for your well wishes. BTW, dim and Pubbies alike have praised President Bush in our State and local media. Hard to get past the traitors in the LSM.

LLS


64 posted on 10/26/2005 12:06:59 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: loreldan

And RR would be sitting there shaking his head in grim amusement, and saying: "What did I tell you? There they go again!"


65 posted on 10/26/2005 12:07:04 PM PDT by dsutah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: samadams2000

<<<<
Conservative brethern..ask yourself..what has he done for conservatives in the last 3 years???
>>>>

Lets be fair to him. He tried and some of the show stoppers were not his fault but the fault of those in Congress who were supposed to support him.

Some key victories :

1) Tax cuts
2) Partial Birth abortion ban
3) Marriage Defense referendum passed everywhere.
4) Good to great judges on various courts in our country.
5) Approval of ANWR drilling in Alaska

Of course in the war on terror and foreign policy, I would say that on the net, he has been OUTSTANDING.

Some desired goals we could have met, which he fought for but could not win because of the spinelesness of his Congressional allies :

1) Social Security Reform/Privatization
2) Tax Simplification

Add your own pet conservative cause here....

Some defeats however were CLEARLY HIS FAULT.

1) McCain-Feingold assault on free speech <--- he could have vetoed, he did not.

2) Spending spending spending <--- Did you ever see Dubya veto anything ?

3) Steel tarrifs

4) Coddling with Ted Kennedy on Education ( spending has increased close to 100% since 2000 with little to show for it ).

5) And now --- the disastrous Miers nomination.

He's not all bad, but he could've been better.


66 posted on 10/26/2005 12:12:54 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: elbucko

As it turned out, '82 would have been a good time the take it to them. Standing firm on the tax cuts would have been a good move as well.


67 posted on 10/26/2005 12:14:57 PM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Yup! If he'd been a real conservative, he would not have been elected. He's not, so he was.

It is a myth that ideologically extreme candidates cannot be elected President. Look at John Kerry, a physically ugly left-wing Massachusetts limousine liberal, with a record of actively opposing the U.S. during wartime -- sure, he didn't win, but he came frighteningly close, even accruing the second-highest vote total ever for a presidential candidate.

68 posted on 10/26/2005 12:15:10 PM PDT by Sloth (You being wrong & me being closed-minded are not the same thing, nor are they mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All
Ahem.
69 posted on 10/26/2005 12:16:56 PM PDT by Killborn (Pres. Bush isn't Pres. Reagan. Then again, Pres. Regan isn't Pres. Washington. God bless them all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: loreldan
Conservatives look back on Reagan with rose-colored glasses. In fact he was almost a carbon copy of Bush - Taxes, national security, judges, education funding, deficit, illegal immigrants, etc. Heck, their administrations even contain the same people!

On the other hand, Reagan was serving in an era when the communist Big Media had a monopoly on the flow of information, and he was fighting a Democratic congress. Bush has neither of these obstacles (yes, there are Democrats with an 'R' by their names in the Senate, but even that is partly Bush's doing).

70 posted on 10/26/2005 12:22:53 PM PDT by Sloth (You being wrong & me being closed-minded are not the same thing, nor are they mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: dsutah

I sure wish Bush had Reagan's way with words. Here's to Reagan.


71 posted on 10/26/2005 12:27:17 PM PDT by loreldan (Lincoln, Reagan, & G. W. Bush - the cure for Democrat lunacy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
You do have a point there. And that is the best defense I've heard vis-a-vis Reagan/Bush.
72 posted on 10/26/2005 12:30:01 PM PDT by loreldan (Lincoln, Reagan, & G. W. Bush - the cure for Democrat lunacy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
...Carter, Clinotn and LBJ were each disasters.

Seeing how you slavishly support President Bush, why do you consider LBJ a disaster?

73 posted on 10/26/2005 12:44:26 PM PDT by ksen ("For an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no Plan B's" - Frumanchu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Seeing how you slavishly support President Bush, why do you consider LBJ a disaster?

I support the President on judicial nominations and the WOT. I'm not happy about the excessive spending; his refusal to veto that atrocity CFR was a disgrace.

LBJ was arguably the worst wartime President we ever had. IMHO he was worse for this country than Carter or Clinton because of his gross mismanagement of Vietnam.

74 posted on 10/26/2005 1:52:10 PM PDT by You Dirty Rats (Lashed to the USS George W. Bush: "Damn the Torpedos, Full Miers Ahead!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
I'm not sure it's the "neocons" who are mad at Bush lately. That applies to Krauthammer and a few others, but "neocon" now seems to apply most to foreign policy, and that's what most "neocons" are occupied with, not judicial appointments.

2000 was the McCain election. Bush qualified as conservative because he wasn't McCain. He also had a Southwestern accent and an evangelical manner which differentiated him both from his father and with McCain. That was enough to convince many that Bush was the conservative in the race. You might also add Bush's call for a "more modest" foreign policy during the campaign. That may have helped to convince many that Bush was an old-fashioned conservative.

Bush is a combination of insider and outsider. As a businessman who didn't win a political race until relatively late, he's a political "outsider." As the son of a president, who took many of his advisors from administrations his father served in, he's a classic "insider." Outsiders don't quite rise to the interests and passions of the ideologically active. Insiders tower above ideological preoccupations. So it was natural that Bush didn't quite fit in to the "movement" view of things. But then, no president will ever satisfy those who are most driven by political ideas.

75 posted on 10/26/2005 2:10:27 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Russ

Huh? I hope you were being sarcastic.

I like to think of conservatives as intelligent and thoughtful rather than your depiction of primitive losers.

Maybe you're the one who's the RINO, out of touch with the mainstream.


76 posted on 10/26/2005 2:17:32 PM PDT by Jedidah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats

<<<<
LBJ was arguably the worst wartime President we ever had. IMHO he was worse for this country than Carter or Clinton because of his gross mismanagement of Vietnam.
>>>>

I might add that it was during the time of LBJ that the Great Society was born. At the time when blacks just won the Civil Right Battle and were on the cusp of following the path of self-reliance and prosperity through responsible living and work ethic, it was LBJ who pompously told their leaders that he would END ALL POVERTY by fighting a war against it.

And who would be the beneficiary of this largesse ? The black community of course. He was the one who popularized the word --- ENTITLEMENT. Ever since then, we have had people who think that government "owes" them something and that they are ENTITLED to every single goodie you can think of, to hell with responsibility.

I trace the start of rampant black illegitimacy to this time.

Since then, we have spent close to 6 trillion dollars to fight this war on poverty, all to no avail, and still the clamor to spend more to eliminate it never ends.

And it is not only me who observed this.

Black economists like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell and many black thinkers like -- Star Parker, Armstrong Williams, Mychal Massie, Niger Ennis, Larry Elder, Ward Connerly and even actor Bill Cosby have made this observation.

Thank you LBJ for helping to create this hole from which we have not dug ourselves out of.

And now of course -- Dubya is creating a new entitlement --As if Medicare isn't going bankrupt ( faster than social security ), he has now created another multi-hundred billion dollar entitlement. This time, not to the poorest, but to some of the wealthiest group of people --- Senior Citizens - via prescription drug benefits.

If you think we can get away from this one by voting the alternative, think again -- The DEMS are calling him TOO STINGY by not spending more for this entitlement.


77 posted on 10/26/2005 2:24:35 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
Yep and next time out it will be rump roast and pig's feet and we will lament that there is no meat loaf on the menu.

Reminds me of my own peculiar notion of Hell ... two large rooms, one burning hot, the other freezing cold, with free and open access between the two.

78 posted on 10/26/2005 2:32:50 PM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

And, the apparent "moderate" influence of his mother and wife have done nothing to push ahead a principled conservative philosophy.


79 posted on 10/26/2005 3:17:26 PM PDT by line drive to right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justanobody
The link you supplied to the State Department conflicts with the remark about Hezbollah.

>>>>Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut, April 18, 1983: Sixty-three people, including the CIA’s Middle East director, were killed and 120 were injured in a 400-pound suicide truck-bomb attack on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

So who is it, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, or some other terrorist entity?

According to Cap Weinberger, we still don't know.

>>>>In his September 2001 FRONTLINE interview, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger said the U.S. still lacks "actual knowledge of who did the bombing" of the Marine barracks.

80 posted on 10/26/2005 4:05:25 PM PDT by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
I wonder why so many hard-right conservatives are suddenly furious at Bush when they supported him in two presidential elections.

That would be because you apparently haven't been paying attention, Ruben. Conservatives gave Bush a pass on his Roosevelt-like big spending, his apparent self-subjugation to Vicente Fox, and his foreign policy debacles for one reason and one reason alone: Supreme Court nominations. When Bush appointed a crony with no record, no discernable judicial philosophy, and strong indications that she is a judicial moderate, at best, it wasn't that they "suddenly" were furious. It was the straw that broke the camel's back.

The fact that this has to be repeated over and over again is telling in and of itself.

81 posted on 10/26/2005 4:41:12 PM PDT by NCSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justanobody
Correction: Pulled/posted the wrong information.

Bombing of Marine Barracks, Beirut, October 23, 1983: Simultaneous suicide truck-bomb attacks were made on American and French compounds in Beirut, Lebanon. A 12,000-pound bomb destroyed the U.S. compound, killing 242 Americans, while 58 French troops were killed when a 400-pound device destroyed a French base. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

82 posted on 10/26/2005 4:51:12 PM PDT by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys; billbears
Working, as I've done for forty years now, to nominate and elect at least a marginally more conservative Republican...

That doesn't seem to be working out for you very well, does it? In that entire 40 years, we've elected exactly one conservative to the White House. And a reasonable question for you would be, did you ever join in the group-think of the time that said Reagan was unelectable? And since Reagan, the trend hasn't been good at all. Maybe you should try something different. Just a thought.

83 posted on 10/26/2005 4:52:03 PM PDT by NCSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: loreldan
Heck, their administrations even contain the same people!

You don't say. I wasn't aware that George Schultz, Cap Weinberger, and Howard Baker were back at the White House.

84 posted on 10/26/2005 4:58:04 PM PDT by NCSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: NCSteve

I was involved in HUGE groups who KNEW that Reagan WAS electable, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

There were two groups in the R party then, as now: we called them the "Rockefeller Republicans". They still exist. If President Bush had not been nominated, one of them would be president now, or algore would be.

You think it impossible to do worse than Bush?

You just wait: if Pataki, Guliani, or another northeast "republican" should ever get nominated, they WOULD be elected. You'll then realize, belatedly, why it is important to nominate the most conservative ELECTABLE R possible. You would see an expansion of the government that would make your head spin.

No matter President Bush's faults to the "conservatives" (who were also in the forefront of criticizing President Reagan's "art of compromise), his faults pale in comparison to the person who would be holding that office were it not him.

Progress has been, and is continuing to be made, by conservatives. It would be better to work to continue that progress, rather than working to eliminate those who have been responsible for any of the progress that has been made.


85 posted on 10/27/2005 6:36:34 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys
There were two groups in the R party then, as now: we called them the "Rockefeller Republicans".

I know. I was around then, and active. They were also known as the Country Club Republicans and they are still around.

If President Bush had not been nominated, one of them would be president now...

Bush is a Rockefeller Republican, so I have no idea how you could say that.

You think it impossible to do worse than Bush?

Absolutely not and I never implied it.

You would see an expansion of the government that would make your head spin.

Dream on. Bush has surpassed LBJ and Roosevelt. Short of becoming a totalitarian state it would be difficult to see a bigger expansion of government in that short a period of time.

...his faults pale in comparison to the person who would be holding that office were it not him.

Content-free argument. And not universally true. A much better President could be holding the office now. Actually, any number of much better Presidents could hold the office.

Progress has been, and is continuing to be made, by conservatives.

Maybe, maybe not. However, since 2000, progress in the conservative movement has slowed to a crawl. Regardless of how hard the bushbots and White House Kool-aid drinkers spin, Bush is a big-government liberal in the mold of Richard Nixon. Sure, he seems to be mostly conservative on social issues, but without the limited government basis in political philosophy, those merits are largely wasted. The title of the thread is partially accurate. Bush is a overall a moderate, even though he was sold as a conservative. No amount of party whitewash will change that.

86 posted on 10/27/2005 7:19:30 PM PDT by NCSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
By Ruben Navarrette Jr.

Who is this compete loser?? Gee SORRY you cannot elect a 100%er. And before the whine all the time chorus thows up the name Regan, look at the record of 1986. a Tax hike, an illegal alien amnesty and negotiating with the commies. In 1986 all the 100ers were whining about Reagan the same way they whine today about Bush. So let's try to deal with reality children. NOTHING in life is perfect. NO ONE is going to agree with you 100%. Learn to live with it or go third party cause those of use who make the party work are sick of carrying you.

87 posted on 10/27/2005 7:23:35 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (I'll try to be NICER, if you will try to be SMARTER!.......Water Buckets UP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
By Ruben Navarrette Jr.

Who is this compete loser?? Gee SORRY you cannot elect a 100%er. And before the whine all the time chorus thows up the name Regan, look at the record of 1986. a Tax hike, an illegal alien amnesty and negotiating with the commies. In 1986 all the 100ers were whining about Reagan the same way they whine today about Bush. So let's try to deal with reality children. NOTHING in life is perfect. NO ONE is going to agree with you 100%. Learn to live with it or go third party cause those of use who make the party work are sick of carrying you.

88 posted on 10/27/2005 7:24:05 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (I'll try to be NICER, if you will try to be SMARTER!.......Water Buckets UP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-88 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