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

Skip to comments.

08/10/06 FOX News Poll: 2006 Election Anti-Incumbent Fever; Job Ratings (Not Good for Republicans)
Fox News ^ | Thursday, August 10, 2006 | Dana Blanton

Posted on 08/10/2006 7:53:47 PM PDT by UncleJeff

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-105 next last
To: UncleJeff
" As the midterm elections approach, voters say they are much more likely to support a challenger over the incumbent candidate"

Ok.
Is that why the RATS voted Lieberman out?
When did Lieberman become Republican then? :)
51 posted on 08/10/2006 8:26:19 PM PDT by Jameison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb

As an Ohioan you could answer #43, DrDeb, with more credibility than could I, a Texan...


52 posted on 08/10/2006 8:27:23 PM PDT by txrangerette ("We are fighting al-Qaeda, NOT Aunt Sadie"...Dick Cheney commenting on the wiretaps!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb

Yes, but the problem is with the ersatz independent, who say they are independent, but vote GOP usually. Not this time, at this time.


53 posted on 08/10/2006 8:28:23 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: UncleJeff

Yea, and Lieberman was going to lose by 13% until the day before the election and then it was 6% but it ended being 4% then the twist is he's expected to win by 20% as an Independent. If someone can figure out the method to a pollster's madness then I would love to know as long as it doesn't require a poll to figure it out.


54 posted on 08/10/2006 8:29:00 PM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jameison

It's just my opinion, but I'm convinced Lieberman would have won handily if he hadn't broadcast his intent to run even if he lost the Primary. I can see that easily swinging more votes than he lost by.


55 posted on 08/10/2006 8:30:10 PM PDT by UncleJeff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb

Can't recall who but someone said Sherrod Brown's voting record is WORSE than Dennis Kuchinich's. Almost unbelievable, but Brown IS truly awful.


56 posted on 08/10/2006 8:30:21 PM PDT by txrangerette ("We are fighting al-Qaeda, NOT Aunt Sadie"...Dick Cheney commenting on the wiretaps!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Torie

Pollsters/political pundits were saying the same thing in 2002 and 2004!


57 posted on 08/10/2006 8:31:24 PM PDT by DrDeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: UncleJeff

I saw that report on Fox. Yada yada, who cares. Outside of Bush telling it like it is, the House ain't doing anything, anyway.

Just, keep Shrillary out of my face!


58 posted on 08/10/2006 8:31:54 PM PDT by onyx eyes (.....Waking up from a poison apple administered by Liberals for the last 25-30 years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Pollsters are less fickle than the consumers of polls; we love them when they look good for us, dismiss them as meaningless when they don't.


59 posted on 08/10/2006 8:32:26 PM PDT by UncleJeff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb

They were not actually, but whatever.


60 posted on 08/10/2006 8:33:46 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
TX 22 could be classic, Rats should win by default. The write in vote is going to be very difficult (dialing each letter for repb.) but there will be no party line vote. If the candidate even comes close it will be certain one term and your out Lamson. Have faith we are going to fight like hell.
61 posted on 08/10/2006 8:34:36 PM PDT by gumboyaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

The poll was pretty accurate wasn't it, and polling in primaries is a tricky business, particularly when it comes to turnout models?


62 posted on 08/10/2006 8:35:17 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

ACU lifetime ratings:

11% Dennis Kucinich
08% Sherrod Brown
http://www.acuratings.org/2005all.htm#OH

Yep, Brown is actually more of a leftist loon than Dennis Kucinich!


63 posted on 08/10/2006 8:36:05 PM PDT by DrDeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: gumboyaya

If that seat gives the Democrats control of the House Tom Delay should be horsewhipped.


64 posted on 08/10/2006 8:38:25 PM PDT by UncleJeff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: PackerBoy
Except for the threat of an impeachment of W, I really don't mind the Republicans getting their butts kicked."

Surely you don't mean that. You really wouldn't mind Nancy Pelosi being 2nd in the line of succession to the Presidency? John Conyers heading up the Judicial Committee? The SCOTUS being hijacked for years past your lifetime?

Puleeeeeeze.
65 posted on 08/10/2006 8:41:23 PM PDT by no dems (www.4condi.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Torie

Yes they were! . . . I analyzed the topline results for 99.9% of the polls conducted during the 2003-2004 election cycle. [Re 2002, read Gerharty's comparative analysis (National Review) of electoral predictions during the summer of 2002 and this summer of 2006.]


66 posted on 08/10/2006 8:42:19 PM PDT by DrDeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: UncleJeff
"...just a Primary."

Unc, bite your tongue! There is no such thing as JUST a primary. Heck, if you're too busy to vote all the time, PLEASE, vote in the primary! That way the rest of us are more likely to have someone decent to vote for! If the dems and the pubs had better candidates in the primaries, we might well have had better candidates in the 2000 and 2004 elections. (admittedly, we might not, either.)
67 posted on 08/10/2006 8:44:25 PM PDT by Old Student (We have a name for the people who think indiscriminate killing is fine. They're called "The Bad Guys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb; AntiGuv
Rather than argue with you about my fading memory, I will just bring in the heavy artillery about polls past. There was nothing remotely in such polls that suggested that the normal partisan divide was breached, or that a host of GOP incumbents were in trouble. But if you think this 2006 is remotely like 2004 or 2002, that is certainly your perogative.
68 posted on 08/10/2006 8:45:26 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: PackerBoy

I do. I'd like Bush to finish his job in appointing more conservative-leaning judges. Policies' impacts last only until several years. Judges' impact last about one generation. While speed-wise the Bushes haven't done the job well, having a Democratic Senate would surely make the job more difficult.


69 posted on 08/10/2006 8:48:36 PM PDT by paudio (Universal Human Rights and Multiculturalism: Liberals want to have cake and eat it too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: UncleJeff
I don't dismiss them as meaningless regardless what the results but I do scrutinize the samples and the wording of the questions. There was this poll recently that claimed 60% of the US is against the war in Iraq but the question was in favor of a timed pullout, two separate issues one bias poll. If pollsters were actually so confident in their own results then the margin of error should be +/-1% which is a total swing of a maximum 2% instead of the usual +/-3.5% which is a swing of maximum 7%. Also, if they want more accurate polls then they should quit using the old 90's party affiliation samples and use the '04 templates of a generous 47% Rats, 44% Republicans and 9% true Independents.
70 posted on 08/10/2006 8:49:41 PM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: andre573

I wish I could do that this year, but my Rino senator's name starts with John and ends with McCain.


71 posted on 08/10/2006 8:50:46 PM PDT by Stayingawayfromthedarkside
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: UncleJeff
I too was upset with DeLay at first but remember if the Rats had not filed the law suit the commission was prepared to allow a substitute candidate. Lamson could not win heads up on merit and issues so he went to his buddies on the courts to insure win. We intend to make this very clear to the voters.
72 posted on 08/10/2006 8:51:12 PM PDT by gumboyaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: UncleJeff

Just remember to vote!


73 posted on 08/10/2006 8:53:31 PM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Torie

I wouldn't say accurate since they missed the number just a few days earlier by 9%. If polling in primaries is that tricky for pollsters and there are that many variables then they really shouldn't put their little credibility on the line with such a risk of getting it too wrong


74 posted on 08/10/2006 8:54:24 PM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Old Student

Yeah, but my point was that if they turned out 250,000 for a Primary, in an off-year, what will November look like nationwide??

If Republicans keep whistling past this graveyard they stand fair to get plowed under. It's fun to tell each other that Democrats are "traitors" and "hate America" but the number of voters buying it is declining by the day.

Then the day after they take control of the House (probable) and/or Senate (unlikely, but more possible now than six months ago) we can start blaming somebody else for our hubris.


75 posted on 08/10/2006 8:54:31 PM PDT by UncleJeff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Torie; AntiGuv

FYI:


Looking around at assessments of the midterm elections in the heat of August:

IN USA TODAY, “Economy, more than war, setting tone for elections,”:

A battle for control of the most closely divided Congress in 70 years enters its final and decisive phase... But for many voters, the economy appears to have eclipsed terrorism as a top concern. And that has made Democrats more optimistic than they have been in months...

Steve Moore of the Club for Growth, a conservative political action committee dominated by well-to-do investors, is even more blunt. "If the economy doesn't pick up and the stock market doesn't rebound, the Republicans are going to lose the House and could lose seats in the Senate," he says.

Their Democratic counterparts are talking more optimistically... A recent Gallup Poll showed 50% of registered voters were more likely to vote for Democrats, 42% for Republicans.

"For most of the cycle, we were slogging against the wind," says Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the Democrats' House campaign committee. "It's nice in the home stretch to have a changing political atmosphere." At the party's Senate campaign headquarters, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., sees "a great opportunity to make gains."


FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, “Bush's deep investment in midterm elections raises stakes for White House,”:

President Bush's vigorous campaigning to elect Republicans in November could make the elections a referendum on his presidency.

Bush has been more active than most presidents in the midterm election cycle. He has personally recruited candidates, raised millions of dollars and traveled to dozens of states in an effort to help the GOP...

"If Republicans lose ground in the House and Senate, it'll be a major embarrassment to him," said Gilbert St. Clair, political science professor at the University of New Mexico. Still, he also said a president "doesn't have much control" over such elections.

The gain or loss of just a few seats could make a major difference in how Congress treats Bush's proposals during the final two years of his term...

Strategists in both parties say that while congressional elections depend heavily on local issues and trends, the war on terrorism and Bush's hands-on effort in many races have made him an issue, too.


RYAN LIZZA OF THE NEW REPUBLIC, writing in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, “Bush's political capital may buy him nothing but trouble,”:

The economy is stagnant, consumer confidence is shaky and a majority of voters are pessimistic about the economy's near-term prospects. On national security, polls show that voters are not inclined to cast their ballots based on the issue; worse, according to National Journal's Charlie Cook, the recent debate over attacking Iraq may have hurt Bush's approval rating.

The danger for Bush is that the more time he spends politicking out in the country, the more the... election results will be interpreted as about him.

[In] states Bush carried or where his candidates enjoy incumbency, he has already lost the expectations game in these races. If Republicans win all of them, it will be a significant victory for him, but losing any one will be considered a giant defeat.

Bush is spending his political capital alright, but if the GOP loses at the polls this fall, he may find it has bought him nothing but trouble.


STEVE NEAL, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, “Fate may smile on Democrats,”:

From all indications, this fall's midterm elections should confirm the Judis-Teixeira thesis... They could win back the House on Nov. 5 and are favored to win key governorships. For the Democrats, happy days may be here again.


DEL ALI, Del Ali, writing in the CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, “Deciding the fall elections,”:

Which side will be successful this November? Polling numbers and historical patterns may provide the best clues.

Little has changed since the 2000 election in terms of voter attitudes toward the two major political parties. For example, Democrats are still faring better among women, and Republicans better with men. Women voters rank the need to improve education and the economy as the two most important issues, while men rank fighting terrorism and reducing taxes as the their top two issues this fall. The racial gap among white and black voting preferences persists. A majority of white voters prefers to see more Republicans elected to Congress, while less than 5 percent of black voters feel the same.

While President Bush's overall ratings are high, his ratings on dealing with the economy and education are significantly lower. In some states, they are hovering around the 50 percent threshold of approval. Historically, high overall approval numbers for a sitting president do not translate into midterm election gains for the party controlling the White House. Indeed, the party controlling the White House generally loses seats in Congress during the midterm elections.

But there have been exceptions. During the 1962 midterm election under John F. Kennedy, the Democrats gained seats in Congress. Many feel that President Kennedy's handling of the cuban missile crisis was directly responsible for those gains. More recently, in the 1998 midterm elections, the Democrats gained seats in Congress in spite of President Clinton's forthcoming impeachment.

Yet if history is a true judge, President Bush, like his father years earlier who also enjoyed high-approval ratings among voters during midterm elections, will see his party lose House seats in Congress. And the delicate Republican hold on that chamber will be lost.


Oh, wait, I'm sorry, all of these analyses are from August 2002, the year Republicans successfully held 19 seats in the Senate and picked up two additional Democratic seats to regain control of that chamber, and expanded their House majority by an additional seven seats. (I deleted references to the year and races that were specific to that year, like Jeb Bush's reelection.)

But funny how much campaign coverage can get recycled from year to year, huh?

http://tks.nationalreview.com/


76 posted on 08/10/2006 8:56:19 PM PDT by DrDeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: gumboyaya

So, instead of it being Delay's fault for not knowing Texas Election Law, it's the Democrat's fault for knowing it??

Delay, and nobody else, screwed that pooch, and the convoluted write-in effort isn't likely to salvage it.

Horsewhip him.


77 posted on 08/10/2006 8:58:20 PM PDT by UncleJeff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb

My quick scan of your post does not notice any polls adduced. Maybe it is my eyes.


78 posted on 08/10/2006 8:59:39 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Torie; DrDeb

"Their Democratic counterparts are talking more optimistically... A recent Gallup Poll showed 50% of registered voters were more likely to vote for Democrats, 42% for Republicans."

This from '02 also?


79 posted on 08/10/2006 9:03:27 PM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: UncleJeff
If the only piece of information a voter had was that one candidate was the incumbent and the other was a newcomer, the poll finds that by 46 percent to 21 percent people say they would be more inclined to vote for the challenger.(snip)

If the election were held today, 48 percent of Americans say they would vote for the Democratic candidate in their congressional district and 30 percent for the Republican candidate. This 18-percentage point edge is up from an 8-point advantage in mid-July and a 13-point lead in June.

Opinion Dynamics Corporation conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from August 8 to August 9. The poll has a 3-point error margin.

So 46% would vote for the challenger and 21% would vote for the incumbent so what do the other 33% do?!

I know there is some analytical science going on here that is somewhat legitimate but with 435 congressional offices up for grabs that equals 2 registered voters per Congressional district (I won't bother with the Senate stats breakdown). That's too fickle for me to give a lot of creedence to.

PS: Don't forget how Lieberman almost closed a huge gap that was a nick under 20 points two weeks ago.

80 posted on 08/10/2006 9:05:15 PM PDT by torchthemummy (Abortion: One Dead, One Wounded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Torie

"Their Democratic counterparts are talking more optimistically... A recent Gallup Poll showed 50% of registered voters were more likely to vote for Democrats, 42% for Republicans."


. . . the perfunctory +8 to +10 point advantage for Democrats in a generic congressional poll of REGISTERED voters -- this "advantage" magically reappears every election cycle, including this one!


81 posted on 08/10/2006 9:06:08 PM PDT by DrDeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb
So Democrats are really only 8 or 10 points ahead??
82 posted on 08/10/2006 9:10:24 PM PDT by UncleJeff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb

OK, I see it now. What are the numbers for "registered" voters today for Gallup? Sure, its August, not November. What we need is Kerry on the ballot.


83 posted on 08/10/2006 9:10:32 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb
Gallup is about the same as 2004. I guess the Pubbies are in grand shape. But the Commie outfit, Fox, is an outlyier, it appears.
84 posted on 08/10/2006 9:16:46 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: UncleJeff

After the airline mess today, it's not looking good for Liberals either. They have no clue how to protect the US. All they know how to do is cower, appease, cry and whine, and raise the white flag.


85 posted on 08/10/2006 9:24:59 PM PDT by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

86 posted on 08/10/2006 9:26:23 PM PDT by cartoonistx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: UncleJeff

The "news" from Iraq will only get worse, by design, and American's will swallow the lefts propaganda hook, line, and terrorist.


87 posted on 08/10/2006 9:26:34 PM PDT by ladyinred (Thank God the Brits don't have a New York Times!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PackerBoy

Don't allow it to happen, because if the Dims get a majority, illegals WILL get amnesty, funding will be cut to the war in Iraq and war on terror, and Bush will be impeached. Also, the Assault Weapons ban could come back.


88 posted on 08/10/2006 9:28:51 PM PDT by Thunder90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: UncleJeff
voters say they are much more likely to support a challenger over the incumbent candidate,

Yeah, then why do 98% of incumbents win all the time?

Be that as it may, this election would be a Republican landslide if the President and the Senate would get off their amnesty/open borders hangup. It's what is making the party faithful and the Reagan Democrats most hurt by the illegal alien invasion stay home.

The House will be the victims of this delusion. Too bad. It probably means we will lose the war, just like in '74. Thanks RINOs and Mr. President.

89 posted on 08/10/2006 9:50:06 PM PDT by oldbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred
"The "news" from Iraq will only get worse, by design, and American's will swallow the lefts propaganda hook, line, and terrorist"

Won't make much difference.
Not with a nasty war against Hizbullah in Lebanon.
And a bunch of Islamofacists plotting to bomb multiple planes headed for America.
That's all everyone will be talking about today, and will be talking about for quite a while.
90 posted on 08/10/2006 9:52:33 PM PDT by Jameison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: CurlyBill

The French lost 16,000 people last summer due to heat exhaustion. I'm not kidding.

What's the death toll in Iraq again?


91 posted on 08/10/2006 10:05:54 PM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CurlyBill
Iraq is going VERY WELL. The news coming out of there is tainted by the lerftist media.

So the media tricked General Abizaid too? "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war," Gen. John Abizaid testified at a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

92 posted on 08/10/2006 10:16:30 PM PDT by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3

Didn't you know General Abizaid is a notorious Liberal??

Must repeat the mantra, "Iraq is going very well", that'll make it true...


93 posted on 08/10/2006 10:22:13 PM PDT by UncleJeff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: oldbill

"Yeah, then why do 98% of incumbents win all the time? " because they have more name recognition. The elections of Bloomburg and Corzine showed what it costs an unknown to win a statewide race. $60 million. How much money does Goerge Soros have?


94 posted on 08/10/2006 10:37:22 PM PDT by ClaireSolt (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: gumboyaya
TX 22 could be classic, Rats should win by default. The write in vote is going to be very difficult (dialing each letter for repb.) but there will be no party line vote. If the candidate even comes close it will be certain one term and your out Lamson. Have faith we are going to fight like hell.

Lampson is going to lose against the write-in vote.

This is not the usual write-in vote that represents a third party alternative.

This is the Republican candidate that Lampson and his Facist Party would not allow on the ballot.

I think Republicans in the 22nd District are going to enjoy writing in the Republican candidate name, which should be Wallace, I know I will.

95 posted on 08/10/2006 10:54:49 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? (Gal.4:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: UncleJeff
Yeah, but my point was that if they turned out 250,000 for a Primary, in an off-year, what will November look like nationwide?? If Republicans keep whistling past this graveyard they stand fair to get plowed under. It's fun to tell each other that Democrats are "traitors" and "hate America" but the number of voters buying it is declining by the day. Then the day after they take control of the House (probable) and/or Senate (unlikely, but more possible now than six months ago) we can start blaming somebody else for our hubris.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

96 posted on 08/10/2006 10:56:48 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? (Gal.4:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: UncleJeff; gumboyaya
So, instead of it being Delay's fault for not knowing Texas Election Law, it's the Democrat's fault for knowing it?? Delay, and nobody else, screwed that pooch, and the convoluted write-in effort isn't likely to salvage it. Horsewhip him.

We would not have a majority in Congress had it not been for Delay and his efforts in Texas.

Moreover, he had to deal with trumped up charges, then an idiotic GOP rule that he step down from the House Leadership rule.

The Democrats have used the courts to manipulate the system, but they are not going to win.

I think most Republican voters are intelligent enough to handle a write-in ballot, or they would not be Republicans!

97 posted on 08/10/2006 11:01:09 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? (Gal.4:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

If polls won elections, the GOP would not have single elected office.


98 posted on 08/10/2006 11:02:10 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? (Gal.4:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: oldbill
The House will be the victims of this delusion. Too bad. It probably means we will lose the war, just like in '74. Thanks RINOs and Mr. President.

Thank you and the rest of your defeatist buddies.

I think most 'Reagan Democrats' are now Republicans, if not, then they were not really Reagan Democrats.

The Germans could have used you guys at Bastogne-'surrounded, oh well, lets surrender'.

99 posted on 08/10/2006 11:07:53 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? (Gal.4:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: UncleJeff

Fox is a mouthpiece for the White House. Don't believe this claptrap. < \moron.org>


100 posted on 08/11/2006 12:26:48 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of "dependence on government"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-105 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