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

Skip to comments.

Breaking Up Is Hard to Do ("Bush Destroyed the Republican Party" -- Drudge Headline)
WSJ.com ^ | Jan 25, 2008 | Peggy Noonan

Posted on 01/26/2008 5:57:27 AM PST by fightinJAG

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-246 next last
To: cake_crumb

Do you mean that Republican primary voters became so uninformed that they nominated poor almost non-Republican candidates?


101 posted on 01/26/2008 6:47:16 AM PST by Theodore R. ( Cowardice is still forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: G.Love

What Peggy Noonan has written here is little different from what Phyllis Schlafly has been saying and documenting for years now.


102 posted on 01/26/2008 6:48:25 AM PST by Theodore R. ( Cowardice is still forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1

I heard her on O’Reilly last night (with Laura Ingraham). I really didn’t agree with much I heard her say. Basically she kept saying, “I was wrong, and it is hard to say that”, and she felt one of Bush’s addresses was way too “aggressive”. But she didn’t define how.

Laura, in essence didn’t contradict her but did say the Congress was full of Republicans to share the blame.

Rush had it right. He said in the beginning of this whole thing, when we had both houses and the presidency, that if we sit back and cease to educate we will lose it all.


103 posted on 01/26/2008 6:50:15 AM PST by I still care ("Remember... for it is the doom of men that they forget" - Merlin, from Excalibur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
Presidents don’t control spending. Congress does, and for Reagan it was Democrat congresses. Reagan vetoed a lot.

GW Bush had the ‘Coach’ Hastert Republican Congress and never ever vetoed any of their spending.

104 posted on 01/26/2008 6:51:42 AM PST by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
What Peggy Noonan has written here is little different from what Phyllis Schlafly has been saying and documenting for years now.

Phyllis Schlafly said that George Bush destroyed the Republican party? Well in that case, I disagree with Phyllis Schlafly AND Peggy Noonan.

105 posted on 01/26/2008 6:52:42 AM PST by G.Love (Romney '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: abclily

You said it for me.


106 posted on 01/26/2008 6:54:31 AM PST by UB355 (Slower traffic keep right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG

I quit giving money to the RNS 6 months before the election whee the Dems rained control of both houses. The GOP asked for it. It was led from the inside by the RINOS.


107 posted on 01/26/2008 6:56:13 AM PST by RSmithOpt (Liberalism: Highway to Hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RSmithOpt
whee=where

rained=gained

Going for more coffee

108 posted on 01/26/2008 6:57:18 AM PST by RSmithOpt (Liberalism: Highway to Hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
The main difference between President Reagan, whom I voted for, on who's second campaign I volunteered and whom I have most admired over the years and President Bush is us, the voter.

We're spoiled. We want instant gratification and we want it NOW, and anyone who doesn't give it to us NOW, will REALLY be sorry because we'll hold our votes until we're blue in the face.

If we can't have a wall, we refuse to compromise and build a fence.

If we can only get a couple of hundred miles of fence at a time, we refuse to vote for those incrementally trying to get that fence built.

If we can't have a candidate who's "conservative enough" and President Bush campaigned as a moderate with very conservative values about some issues, then we must self flagellate at the alter of "pure conservatism" by voting Democrat.

It was "conservatives" voting "the bums out" that got us a Democrat controlled House and Senate, where NOTHING we want will be accomplished.

President Reagan would disagree with these practices. He would have compromised and he would have kept pounding away until he got all or as much as possible of his and the voters' will accomplished. He wouldn't have recommended a public hanging.

109 posted on 01/26/2008 6:58:51 AM PST by cake_crumb (Even if you're unable to FIGHT to save your country, you CAN vote to save it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

I will go along with that.


110 posted on 01/26/2008 7:02:25 AM PST by Piquaboy (22 year veteran of the Army, Air Force and Navy, Pray for all our military .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
I happily voted for George Bush through 2 election cycles, but damn the guy now. If he was up for election today, he sure wouldn't get my vote. Nobody would.

he spends like a drunken Democrat.

His prescription program cost a friggin fortune.

I could understand having to spend after 911 to dampen all the fires. But he's done more to grow govt than Clinton even.

The list goes on and on.

But I find his stance on illegals to be revolting. Repubs are supposed to be the defenders of America. It's their number one advantage with the electorate and its their number one selling point.

During the amnesty debate, we had almost as many R's voting for the amnesty as D's. This is CONSERVATIVE??? No, it's not.

I don't demand that a politco agree with me 100% but I do agree that they agree with me and my values at least 80% otherwise why bother? At this stage, I'm in the why bother category about all the candidates.

As far as I'm concerned the Party's broken.

111 posted on 01/26/2008 7:02:47 AM PST by HeartlandOfAmerica (The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BunkDetector
Idiots often kill others. Or run entire countries into the ground. Hitler, the failed artists, Stalin the failed priest, Lenin the failed lawyer, Pol Pot the French student, Saddam, Hugo Chavez. All taking others down with them.

Some Kennedys ski backwards into trees.
Other Kennedys get on aircraft when their electrical engineer officers refuse to board.
JFK got his 3 V-12, av gas Packard PT boat run over by a ship three times his size, half his speed and five times his turning radius that he was supposedly looking for.
And of course, Ted.

This is why our founders where better. Leaders grew up and lived physical lives that educated idiots that there is a whole world of things that doesn't care who you pappy was, or what school you went to. These people knew that falling off a common horse will kill you. That ship captains and sailors were skilled and courageous men. They knew the smell and sound of musket. Todays' leaders come out of paperpushing mills, and are fairly effete and couldn't hammer a nail if their lives depended upon it. I'm not a big fan of this trend. I especially see it in todays young males from upper income families. They are ( gross generalization ) clueless.

112 posted on 01/26/2008 7:03:04 AM PST by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: no dems

President Reagan didn’t close the borders either, because he was dedicated, free market capitalist - like President Bush - and the party didn’t self destruct.

I believe “globalism” in it’s present definition was coined after he left office, but could be wrong: maybe it’s just that it’s being slung around almost as much as “divisive” nowadays. Seems that, if it had been much in use then, that tag would have fitted President Reagan just as much as either President Bush.


113 posted on 01/26/2008 7:03:33 AM PST by cake_crumb (Even if you're unable to FIGHT to save your country, you CAN vote to save it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: melsec
"If any of the current candidates had half the balls of GW they might not have so much trouble getting elected."

You are SO right.

114 posted on 01/26/2008 7:05:21 AM PST by cake_crumb (Even if you're unable to FIGHT to save your country, you CAN vote to save it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb

Oh yes, don’t forget he put those Supreme Court judges in too, Alito and Roberts. No credit for that, Peggy????


115 posted on 01/26/2008 7:07:45 AM PST by go-ken-go (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt

Uh huh. Have fun with Pauly boy.


116 posted on 01/26/2008 7:09:36 AM PST by cake_crumb (Even if you're unable to FIGHT to save your country, you CAN vote to save it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: David Isaac
We will never sell conservatism (or the GOP) to the electorate if we cannot define it.

This is a tough problem. Let us take a very devisive one on to start. What is the conservative position on the war on drugs? The moralistic right who want to use law to enforce social norms think it is just fine. Those who worry about a police state, growth of government, the cost, social consequences and morality of keeping large numbers of folks locked up in a for profit prison system (privatization gone amock), the effect on our constitution, etc., think we have gone mad.

Turns out we actually had Sadam pretty well bottled up long before the invasion, but the neocons (neoimperialists) wanted Iraq. A good conservative supports the defense of the country, etc. but expending blood and treasure to create chaos in a place foresaken by our saviour when sorting it all out is beyond our wisdon - is that the conservative position?

What is our position on the WOT? We have a director of homeland security who has run so amok that he has declared England the next enemy. My view is that terrorism is best fought by the DoD and a well organized foreign intelligence service, to the extent we have one. Otherwise, don't keep the names of suspected terrorists on a secret list. Post their names, faces and crimes on the internet. A well-informed citizenry will do the rest and we can let gandma's in walkers and 4 year old blond girls go about their business unmolested.

Why do you think Ron Paul is so popular? I am a sort of supporter in a way. It is not because I think that RP is going to get into the white house or even should be President. A few of his positions are a bit extreme. But, he serves a very useful function in reminding us how far the Republican party and the country has drifted from constitutional conservatism, the governing principles of our founding fathers.

In brief, defining the conservative philosphy is key. It was easy under Regan because new deal liberalism had degenerated into socialist/communistic sloganeering. All one needed was to establish a party based on things that we knew were true as opposed to a lot of things that just were not so.

117 posted on 01/26/2008 7:15:48 AM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: go-ken-go

Right, and Roberts and Alito, too. The Base won’t thank him for Roberts and Alito if the SCOTUS upholds the Second Amendment, though. The Base WILL excoriate him for Roberts and Alito if the SCOTUS somehow does not.


118 posted on 01/26/2008 7:16:25 AM PST by cake_crumb (Even if you're unable to FIGHT to save your country, you CAN vote to save it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: nmh

ditto that.........worse than my disagreement w/ this wanna be ,is her selfishness , she is slapping the GOP during a primary ?

I watched her arrogance on BOR w/ Laura sitting in....

just for the record, if anyone saw Peggy last night,
could she make herself any less attractive


119 posted on 01/26/2008 7:19:43 AM PST by advertising guy (my Sleep Number Bed is 9..........................................Budweisers....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

I believe “moderate” is the key word here. Moderation in all things, does not apply to principles, which is what we are being told we must accept.

“Advisors”, is another key word. Presidents are defined by their advisors, as they must be. The problem is when they are “re”defined by their advisors, which I beleve, has happened to almost, if not all Presidents, for at least the past hundred years (FDR being the best example).


120 posted on 01/26/2008 7:20:19 AM PST by David Isaac (Duncan Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb

That’s all you got? come on.


121 posted on 01/26/2008 7:20:48 AM PST by ovrtaxt (No Rudy McRombee for me! I'm voting for Ron Paul. The GOP can curl up and die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG

Rush, like most of the political pundits is a big bag of wind. He proved that Rush cares about Rush and doesn’t know his a$$ from his elbow.

He claims he doesn’t get involved in endorsements and then sets about to do just that by default. Huckabee and McCain will destroy the GOP, but not Mitt and Rudy? Is there some regional bias here or perhaps the Bain/Clear Channel relationship is driving his insanity?

The arrogant blowhard thinks Huckabee and McCain will destroy the GOP but not the candidates who endorsed Tsongas and Cuomo? Not the candidates who were for abortion? Really, Rush? When Rush was asked why he would not do more to support the only conservative in the race he intimated it was not his job to do so. Things seem to have changed in that regard. If either Huckabee or McCain wins, where does Rush go from there?

Four candidates remain, one no better or worse than the other and none are conservative, yet Rush seemingly prefers the NE liberals? Why didn’t he include them all? I suppose it doesn’t matter to Rush as long as the checks continue to clear. I would think that the GOP is bigger than one election and one candidate. If not, then it was not worth anything in the beginning. What happens, happens, and as long as there are some true conservatives around to pick up the pieces as usual, it won’t matter in the long term.


122 posted on 01/26/2008 7:22:56 AM PST by WildcatClan (The epitome of irony is that few entities exist, less common, than common-sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
Saddam was exporting terrorism and using OUR money, OUR MONEY via oil for food to pay the families of successful homocide bombs and to BUY POLITICIANS and members of the MEDIA. We found a Pali BOMB FACTORY in downtown Baghdad, complete with Pali terrorists! How can YOU, as a self professed uber conservative, honestly believe that us paying billions to keep Saddam contained while HE used that money to pay terrorists and buy influence was a good thing?

For TWELVE YEARS we supported Saddam supporting terrorism. That is a LOT of money. OUR money. TAXPAYER money. And it DID NOT WORK.

"Imperialism" my left toenail. It was common sense by someone with more survival sense than the average lemming - which is more than can be said for the average "paleocon" - and that someone was President Bush.

123 posted on 01/26/2008 7:23:10 AM PST by cake_crumb (Even if you're unable to FIGHT to save your country, you CAN vote to save it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: HeartlandOfAmerica

“As far as I’m concerned the Party’s broken.”

Same here!


124 posted on 01/26/2008 7:25:10 AM PST by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Alan Keyes is nonexistent this cycle. After getting what, 25 percent, against the popular Obama in liberal IL, no one takes him seriously with his reparations for slavery.

He is the only Conservative standing, and I vote Conservative. You may keep your RINOs.

Regarding Keyes' stand on "reparations", this press release might clarify the issue for you.

Keyes on reparations for descendants of slaves

Reparations would be taking money from you and giving it to them, which is not what he proposed at all, and is in fact what is being done already though the welfare system.

Keyes' proposal was to exempt blacks from federal taxation for a generation or two as an economic stimulus, rather than a continuation of largely useless legislation aimed at leveling the playing field.

125 posted on 01/26/2008 7:27:37 AM PST by roamer_1 (Conservative always, Republican no more. Keyes '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG

Does anyone have Mike Huckabees actual record. regarding his policies and decision making?


126 posted on 01/26/2008 7:31:19 AM PST by ColdSteelTalon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Yes, and that strategy yields 39-40 percent like GHWB in 1992.

Yet still they try. Silly.

127 posted on 01/26/2008 7:35:02 AM PST by roamer_1 (Conservative always, Republican no more. Keyes '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
BS... Bush played his part in it alright... but the rinos spending like drunk sailors and Amnesty being pushed by graham, mcinsane and others... calling Conservatives racists and bigots... being elected as Conservatives and voting like dims... and certain Republicans causing National scandals by their (either corrupt, immoral or both) actions... painting ALL Republicans as hypocrites... is why we find ourselves where we are today.

LLS

128 posted on 01/26/2008 7:38:48 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (Support America, Kill terrorists, Destroy dims and vote for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

She alays seemed to us to be very solid but the last year or so she seems very out of the loop and silly acting.


129 posted on 01/26/2008 7:39:04 AM PST by cubreporter (I trust Rush. He has done more for this country than any of us will ever fully realize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG

For the good of the nation, we need a Constitutional Amendment—no more Bushes or Clintons—EVER. DNA testing would be required for borderline cases.


130 posted on 01/26/2008 7:39:18 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly

Ding... ding... ding... we have a WINNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LLS


131 posted on 01/26/2008 7:40:10 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (Support America, Kill terrorists, Destroy dims and vote for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Do you mean that Republican primary voters became so uninformed that they nominated poor almost non-Republican candidates?

What "Republican" primary voters? For the most part, these primaries have been in blue or blue leaning states, with open primaries. If it had been that only registered Republicans were voting, you might have a point.

132 posted on 01/26/2008 7:42:15 AM PST by roamer_1 (Conservative always, Republican no more. Keyes '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1
Noonan has to publish overseas to make a living. Conservatives (like myself) like her but we do not think she is very astute or Conservative. She is elitist in that she thinks her light shines the brightest. It does not.

LLS

133 posted on 01/26/2008 7:42:44 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (Support America, Kill terrorists, Destroy dims and vote for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ColdSteelTalon
"Does anyone have Mike Huckabees actual record. regarding his policies and decision making?"

Try this:

Huckabee on the Issues

134 posted on 01/26/2008 7:47:39 AM PST by yorkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
Peggy Noonan was a brilliant speech writer 30 years ago.  Today, she's just 30 years older and a bit crankier.  Nothing has destroyed the Republican party.  President Bush did some bone-headed things like the nomination of Harriet Miers, but  as I recall judge Alito sits on the court, not Harriet.  It didn't make me question my party, it just caused a sore spot on my head due to scratching it in wonderment.

President Bush's biggest problem seems to have been overspending.  But, what were the big ticket items here, Iraq War, Homeland Security and the prescription drug program.  Hmmm... I can't think of two and certainly not three of these items I was against.  Percentage increases in existing programs certainly were much lower than traditional budget hikes.  President Bush didn't fight back when attacked, but I can't find the logic needed to follow this problem to the conclusion of a fractured GOP. The President IMHO is on the wrong side of immigration, but that's not destroying the GOP, in fact I'd say immigration helps pull the GOP together.  I'm sure there are more Republicans that want to throw illegals out of the country and build a fence than there are Pro-Life-Gun-Small Government Republicans.

Everyone is looking for a scapegoat to blame the Republican woes of late.  I find it humorous that so many are joining lockstep with Democrats in pointing fingers at the President.



I'm personally tired of everyone evoking the name of President Reagan. A good man and in my opinion the best President we've had in over a century, but people forget how Mr. Reagan got elected.  The holy mantra flung around is because he was a hard core conservative, or is it that he was a fiercely religious man, or a hawk or so many others that I lose track.  Well, exactly how does that explain 26% of Democrats, 27% of liberals and 54% of moderates voting for him. Heck, only 71% of conservatives voted for the man. See table/a> from raw data by American National Election Studies (ANES). He was smart enough to create a big tent coalition.

The problem with the GOP is that each of it's constituents has decided that they alone represent the party.  Evangelicals think they are the only true Republicans, far right Conservatives have the same vision, as do Neo-Cons, moderates and so on. That's why we can't find a candidate.  There is no such applicant that personifies this ideal candidate.  Republicans have finally become intolerant of themselves.  Everyone's a RINO!

Just watch for posts back to me to prove my point!!!  :-)



135 posted on 01/26/2008 7:50:24 AM PST by HawaiianGecko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bluebeak

The “Country Club Blue Bloods” you speak of have been the base of the party for over a century. Many members of the current socially conservative “base” have only been with the party for a few decades. So it’s hard to say that the former group of stealing the party.

Still, the old base (the pro-business middle class) would be wise not to lose sight of the moral values society must hold for capitalism to succeed. Just as the party would be wise not to lose sight of the fiscal values the old base values (or we’ll have another election like 2006).


136 posted on 01/26/2008 7:53:44 AM PST by Young Scholar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
"Gonna be hard to come by when the suits running the GOP hate conservatives as much as the 'Rats do...."

Conservatives against totalitarian government has a nice ring to it.

137 posted on 01/26/2008 7:55:50 AM PST by Earthdweller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Yeah, but Bush’s failure to control the borders is more devastating than anything a GOP president has ever done. He’s basically allowed millions of potential Democrats to enter the country, and by pandering to them has created an atmosphere where anyone wishing to defend the borders is regarded as an “extremist”.


138 posted on 01/26/2008 7:56:17 AM PST by puroresu (Enjoy ASIAN CINEMA? See my Freeper page for recommendations (updated!).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

“Even he admits other than the show, he’s been a failure all his life.”

LOL, yeah, so what? His show has been a spectacular success! What have you done that comes close?


139 posted on 01/26/2008 7:59:27 AM PST by narses (...the spirit of Trent is abroad once more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl
That is why there is Mitt.

Oh, please, willard might be a rino republican, but he is not a conservative.

140 posted on 01/26/2008 7:59:29 AM PST by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: G.Love

I think we have also forgotten that Reps like Tom DeLay who we thought was a strong leader and bowed down to a liberal district judge...kind of like his old business of killing cockroaches. He was one elected with the Reagan agenda but turned out to cower when he really needed to lead. Took his heafty campaign pot of gold and retired and his seat was lost to a liberal.

My thoughts are, the party might regain its roots when we have to suffer 4 years of liberal leadership and have to bring the ship back to the port!


141 posted on 01/26/2008 8:03:24 AM PST by YouGoTexasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1

Exactly right. I wish the has been would just go away.. She wrote a few good speeches for Reagan and that’s about it.


142 posted on 01/26/2008 8:05:17 AM PST by mimaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Young Scholar

It’s true that the country club Republicans have been around longer than the social conservatives. But that’s because no one until the 1960s was trying to use federal power to force abortion, the homosexual agenda, militant secularism, leftist public school indoctrination, and other such things on the populace. The rise in the religious right was in response to that threat. When that threat arose, the Democrats endorsed it, seeing it as a way to amass federal power and push America left by creating a culturally Marxist society. The country club Republicans yawned and looked the other way because all they cared about was taxes and spending. If it hadn’t been for the religious right, we’d be much further to the left than we are today.


143 posted on 01/26/2008 8:07:16 AM PST by puroresu (Enjoy ASIAN CINEMA? See my Freeper page for recommendations (updated!).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: narses

Failed my Army physical, lied and went on to be a Green Beret. But then I come from sap patriotic people.


144 posted on 01/26/2008 8:09:03 AM PST by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
Brain Capital, is a cesspool that the demorats will tap shortly.

Romney, who’s the wealthiest candidate running for president, still retains an investment in the private equity fund set up on Grand Cayman Island.

145 posted on 01/26/2008 8:09:29 AM PST by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
I beleive Bush is letting in Christians because both sides of our corrupt government are going to push in anyway because they don't like sovereignty and both like the money illegals bring in money.

Agreeing with a believer on something must cause a massive headache for the religion hating liberal government. They are so conflicted that psychics on other planets are probably predicting massive human brain aneurysm.

146 posted on 01/26/2008 8:10:22 AM PST by Earthdweller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
Plenty of Country Club Republicans, like Mitt’s parents, were for Planned Parenthood, gay rights, forced busing( Only working class white neighborhoods). High taxes and regulations supported existing business and provide entries to barriers from competition. Many Republican businessmen have no problem with using taxes and regulations to line their pockets. Lawyers and farmers come to mind. Real estate types like to use tax money to build stadiums to boost their city, a la, GW Bush, although I think they got the citizens to vote for it( not sure ).
147 posted on 01/26/2008 8:15:04 AM PST by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
Much worse than that. It believes it IS right. The leadership believes it can cast off it's base and pick up the difference in the middle. All it has to do is get rid of those awful gun nuts and nasty Christians.

BTTT

148 posted on 01/26/2008 8:18:56 AM PST by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.

In the first place El Rushbo is never absurd unless he is being absurd to illustrate the truth, so Peggy is wrong on that point. Also Rush is right that if McCain or Huckabee are nominated the GOP may well be ended because a move to a 3rd party may be the result.

Agree that Bush was terrible on immigration and spending, but was better than any democRAT would have been on the war.

149 posted on 01/26/2008 8:20:37 AM PST by Mogollon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
occasional perceived

LOL, what spin!!

150 posted on 01/26/2008 8:22:02 AM PST by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-246 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