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 last
To: tillacum

It is my understanding that Baptists are the denomination from which Mormons draw most of their converts, unless the individual is previously unchurched.


201 posted on 01/26/2008 7:42:17 PM PST by Theodore R. ( Cowardice is still forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Do I get the extra large belt buckle?


202 posted on 01/26/2008 7:43:12 PM PST by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Rush4U

You got it. On several different levels.


203 posted on 01/27/2008 4:59:18 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

I agree that Peggy fumbled the chance to make her point.

That said, I don’t see how Bush can be blamed for what’s happening on the GOP side in this election. Conservatives came forward and offered to be the nominee, but the grassroots did not rally to them.

Neither the MSM nor the Party nor the President could keep a conservative leader from catching fire as the nominee if the conservative rank and file rallied to him. But they didn’t.

So. Here we are.


204 posted on 01/27/2008 5:02:46 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

How did “the suits running the party” keep conservatives from coalescing around Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter?

These days a candidate can even get started on the internet, just like Howard Dean did. Yes, he ultimately crashed and burned because he was . . . Howard Dean. But he came out of nowhere, with no party support; he just caught fire in the Democrat base.

About the same thing happened with Obama. He wasn’t the “party candidate;” Hildy was.

I call BS on any theory that “the suits” or the MSM can do one thing to keep conservatives from supporting a conservative candidate. For sure, the MSM may be instrumental in defeating that candidate, but they are not the reason the conservatives (or those who were more conservative than the front-runners now) in this race never got out of the very, very, very bottom tier.


205 posted on 01/27/2008 5:06:53 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly

Agreed.

But the question is why didn’t conservatives across the nation rally to the conservatives who offered to be the GOP nominee?

Who could have possibly stopped them from supporting, say, Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter if they wanted to?

Even Ross Perot got 19% of the vote, for goodness sake.


206 posted on 01/27/2008 5:08:57 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

But we the people got that fixed. Why? Because we had some influence in the Bush administration.

That won’t be the case if the Rats win in Nov.


207 posted on 01/27/2008 5:12:25 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

search only works if the posters use the original headline, which according to search, they did not!


208 posted on 01/27/2008 5:13:18 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG

Here’s my take on why Bush is the blame for this:

A broad base of conservatives supported him both in 2000 and 2004. (In 2004 he extended his appeal to independents and Reagan democrats.)

He took that support and tossed it in the trash can on a number of issues. He gave the finger to the people who supported him and he did it with almost a fine-tuned instinct for what would piss us off the most. Remember Harriet Myers? That wasn’t even an act of bad-principles (such as illegal amnesty) but just a sort of idiosyncratic stick to poke us in the eye with.

And he is our leader! He is the leader of the coalition of economic conservatives, social conservatives and military conservatives. And he shafted each one of those groups in his own way. Including the military conservatives. In these terror-times, what else is border control but a military issue? Including the social conservatives; what else is CFR but an establishment lock-box on the ability of social conservatives to challenge the status quo? And of course, the economic conservatives, with his huge increases in spending and his six year inability to veto a single bill, and his eight year inability to open up any new drilling in Alaska or offshore.

And he is our leader! And he led us to a point where we are fighting amongst each other.

It’s not all his fault. But he is our leader. And he led us into RINO swamps where we were doomed to fight and bicker amongst each other.


209 posted on 01/27/2008 5:17:13 AM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

Have to give it some more thought, but it seems to me that the base of a political party can and sometimes does change over time. To me, it looks like more of “natural” process, not one influenced all that much one way or the other by a president.

Because, by definition, a base is a group of people who really have nowhere else to go politically.


210 posted on 01/27/2008 5:19:47 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb

Agreed.


211 posted on 01/27/2008 5:20:08 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb

Good point.


212 posted on 01/27/2008 5:24:24 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
WE have destroyed the Republican party.

My point exactly.

This situation isn't Bush's fault. How in the world did anything he did prevent conservatives from rallying around the more conservative candidates in the presidential race?

It didn't and they didn't. I'm not sure why in all particulars, but the conservative candidates, who as politicians had at least the same skills as those who are front-runners today, never made it out of the bottom tier. Who is responsible for that? Well, conservatives.

Either there are not really as many conservatives as there are said to be, or conservatives aren't as conservative as they say they are, or "conservatism" is taking on a new meaning in practical, political terms . . . or . . . or . . .

The point is that whatever is happening, whatever it means that conservatives are not rallying to conservative candidates in numbers sufficient to make them viable, it is happening within the rank and file.

George W. Bush didn't keep people from supporting Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter, for example. Neither did the party, nor the MSM.

When the base becomes a loose group of single/handful of single issue groups, rather than an association of persons interested in advancing some core ideals, the base will break.

213 posted on 01/27/2008 5:34:18 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: no dems

Even if it’s true that W was a disaster, I’m still looking for how to pin the blame for the state of the GOP race on him.


214 posted on 01/27/2008 5:36:24 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: G.Love
The idea that George Bush has singlehandedly “destroyed” the Republican party is nonsense.

I agree with you.

One thing I find troubling about this whole enterprise is that, of all things conservatism is, it's about personal responsibility. It's about the "can do" attitude. It's about realizing and acting on the fact that one makes one's own success.

Yet when we as conservatives, for whatever reason, fail (yes, fail) to rally to conservatism, quickly the search is on to blame someone else.

As I have said in numerous posts, did George Bush, or the party, or the MSM keep one person who wanted to from supporting, say, Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter?

No.

Did either of those more conservative candidates even get out of the block?

No.

Who's responsible for that fact?

Well, it has to be that "we" are. By that I mean, "we" the people, conservatives as a whole.

I guess people will come back with something about who is and is not a "true" conservative. But then what they are saying is that there really aren't enough true conservatives to make a difference politically.

If that's the case, is that George Bush's fault? Did he force each person to adopt or reject a particular political ideology, or did each person reach his own conclusions?

215 posted on 01/27/2008 5:44:00 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
But we the people got that fixed. Why? Because we had some influence in the Bush administration. That won’t be the case if the Rats win in Nov.

Good point.

216 posted on 01/27/2008 5:48:02 AM PST by GOPJ (Hillary Didn't Win A Single County In S.C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
Had Bush put his full energy into a few simple objectives the GOP would be poised to deliver a knockout blow this year:

1. Permanent tax cuts
2. Reduced government spending / balanced budget
3. Social Security privatization
4. Destruction of Al Qaeda
5. Border security (fence)

217 posted on 01/27/2008 5:49:09 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

Excellent post.


218 posted on 01/27/2008 5:51:07 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG

WHY, YES HE HAS


219 posted on 01/27/2008 5:51:07 AM PST by servantboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Seems to me that voters are more informed than ever. The candidates can't get away with half the crapola they used to, with the internet, YouTube and so on being used to show their lies. And the MSM can't control the information, either.

So my question is: if it's not information (in fact, voters have more information than ever), what explains the fact that the more conservative candidates got practically zero support among conservatives? Or does conservatism not really exist among voters? If the base is voting in the Republican primaries, is the base proving to be conservative or not?

These are some fundamental questions, but they have nothing to do with George W. Bush, I think.

220 posted on 01/27/2008 5:51:15 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb

Well said and spot on!

I think even Rush has lost sight of the fact of what politics is and what it accomplishes (or not).


221 posted on 01/27/2008 5:54:10 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: HeartlandOfAmerica
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.

You've raised the fundamental question: what is conservatism?

Yes, I know, and wholeheartedly believe, that conservatism is a set of unchanging ideals ("immutable," as Rush likes to say).

But it seems to me there are only two conclusions that can be reached here:

1. Either there are not enough "conservatives" out there to cause the election of "conservative" congresscritters to cause the implementation of "conservative" policies (on issues such as immigration), or---

2. What you are advocating as an essential expression of "conservatism" (the rejection of amnesty) isn't.

Neither of those conclusions is pretty.

222 posted on 01/27/2008 6:05:32 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: go-ken-go

Peggy’s not the only one who blows off what Bush did for our country, and our future, by appointing Alito and Roberts.

Plenty of people fail to give him/us (”we the people” had a lot to do with getting them nominated as well) credit for that.


223 posted on 01/27/2008 6:07:46 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
search only works if the posters use the original headline, which according to search, they did not!

Point taken, hope you're enjoying your weekend!
224 posted on 01/27/2008 6:09:08 AM PST by mkjessup (GOP + FOX + National Review = The NEW "Axis of RINOs")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko
The problem with the GOP is that each of it's constituents has decided that they alone represent the party

Exactly. A great summation of a great post.

225 posted on 01/27/2008 6:11:44 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: kjam22

There’s actually some truth to that. Especially if he keeps on this road which will encourage the 100% to stay home.


226 posted on 01/27/2008 6:15:15 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat
So Alito and Roberts are an example of the success of conservatives in influencing an important act of the administration. Agreed.

So where were conservatives on everything else? Why were they not similiarly players in all the things here that people complain about?

227 posted on 01/27/2008 6:18:41 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson; cake_crumb

Fifty years from now Iraq will be a relatively free and prosperous and peaceful country in the heart of the Middle East.

It all will have been worth it.


228 posted on 01/27/2008 6:19:49 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree

Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter could have been suitable conservative leaders, but conservatives did not rally to them.

So is it the leadership is lacking or the willingness to support leadership?


229 posted on 01/27/2008 6:21:52 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG

Peggy Noonan maudlin stuff.

Did GWBush disappoint the party core? yes absolutly.

Is GWBush out of touch or refused to hear the party core? yes absolutly.

I don’t see this as ending the party.

I see this as a MSM effort to push the parties to two poles.

A clique for poor people and a clique for rich people.


230 posted on 01/27/2008 6:24:09 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

But how did Bush prevent us from, say, supporting the more conservative candidates in the primaries?

How did Bush keep down conservatives to the point that Thompson and Hunter dropped out before we even get to the closed races?

How did he do that?


231 posted on 01/27/2008 6:25:52 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion

Your list is awesome, but how does the lack of those accomplishments translate into conservatives not backing the more conservative candidates that were in the race now?


232 posted on 01/27/2008 6:27:40 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

I am, thank you!


233 posted on 01/27/2008 6:28:26 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG

a leader must lead.

Hunter had a horrible campaign. Dismal communication skills.

Thompson was better but his campaign needed a shock and awe start and it flopped. He tried to communicate new media but spend money on the old time table.

Thompson was effective one on one as seen with the “thompson effect”, it proves that people are hungry for conservative values when they are effectivly presented.
(the msm blackout template did not help either)

The fact remains, DINO trups RINO, only the candidate making conservative points can win.


234 posted on 01/27/2008 6:39:33 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
Agreed that Iraq will have been worth it. Even an independent Pali state may have been worth it, especially if the Egyptian government completely loses patience.

"So where were conservatives on everything else?"

Conservatives were and are all over the map on everything else, with nearly everyone screaming "My way or the highway"

235 posted on 01/27/2008 7:00:52 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 228 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
Your list is awesome, but how does the lack of those accomplishments translate into conservatives not backing the more conservative candidates that were in the race now?

First, I think the White House and Congress had a slim window to prove that conservatism works. They failed miserably in my estimation. You and I know Bush isn't a conservative, but the average voter believes Bush is a conservate, he's failed, therefore conservatism has failed. That makes it much more difficult to run as a conservative. Had the GOP enacted conservative legislation with positive results, the climate would be much more favorable.

Second, most in the GOP intuitively know that this party is in deep trouble this year. Much of that trouble is directly attributable to the GOP itself. Many think the only way to avoid that is to run left; consequently many conservatives have betrayed their principles because they think it will prevent a Hillary Presidency.

Finally, conservatives of all types (fiscal, national security, social) have been repeatedly kicked in the teeth over the last eight years. History has demonstrated that "going along to get along" nets them nothing. Understandably, their mentality has changed to "all or nothing" and the chances of a coalition conservative candidate (i.e. Fred Thompson) has been reduced.

236 posted on 01/27/2008 8:04:59 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb

Once it breaks down into “my way or the highway,” the party stops being, IMHO, a party.

To me, a political party is a voluntary association of individuals who join together to advance, really, a world view through electing officials who will somehow-—maybe not directly, but somehow-—help their cause.


237 posted on 01/27/2008 8:12:34 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
I appreciate your reply.

You wrote:

First, I think the White House and Congress had a slim window to prove that conservatism works. They failed miserably in my estimation. You and I know Bush isn't a conservative, but the average voter believes Bush is a conservate, he's failed, therefore conservatism has failed. That makes it much more difficult to run as a conservative. Had the GOP enacted conservative legislation with positive results, the climate would be much more favorable.

You may be right as to the "average voter." But I am talking about the conservative voter. To me, this still doesn't speak to explaining why conservative voters didn't rally to the more conservative candidates, leading in fact to those candidates having to drop out altogether.

Did what the GOP did legislatively figure at all into who you supported among the field that was presented? No. And I bet it didn't effect other conservative voters either.

Second, most in the GOP intuitively know that this party is in deep trouble this year. Much of that trouble is directly attributable to the GOP itself. Many think the only way to avoid that is to run left; consequently many conservatives have betrayed their principles because they think it will prevent a Hillary Presidency.

I think your observations are accurate, but I still don't think they apply to conservative voters. I don't think that conservative voters ever decide to "run left," or to "betray their principles."

So either there are a whole bunch of people who call themselves conservative, but who aren't. Or there aren't nearly as many conservatives out there as one might believe. I don't know which it is.

But I do know that conservatives had every opportunity to at least support more conservative candidates than the front-runners now, but they didn't.

Finally, conservatives of all types (fiscal, national security, social) have been repeatedly kicked in the teeth over the last eight years. History has demonstrated that "going along to get along" nets them nothing. Understandably, their mentality has changed to "all or nothing" and the chances of a coalition conservative candidate (i.e. Fred Thompson) has been reduced.

I can't agree that conservatives have "netted nothing" over the last eight years. For one thing, the Supreme Court has been changed for the foreseeable future to one much more balanced.

But, regardless of the merits of the conclusions you observe, I think your last point is the most telling. The increase in the "my way or the highway," or one of the many other ways it can be characterized, thinking is, IMHO, exactly what is preventing the emergence of a candidate who is at least more conservative than the current front-runners.

It's not the GOP, Bush, the MSM or anyone or anything else that caused conservatives to fail to get a more conservative candidate out of the bottom tier.

It was solely the ever-increasing pervasiveness of the idea that accepting anything less than 100% constitutes "going along to get along" and that is to be avoided.

238 posted on 01/27/2008 8:27:53 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
Conservatives were and are all over the map on everything else, with nearly everyone screaming "My way or the highway"

I have been asking a bunch of questions here as to why conservatives failed to get one of the more conservative candidates out of the bottom tier.

I have consistently called BS on the explanation being the party, the MSM, Bush, etc.

Your one-line, above, did a lot to shed insight, leading to me articulating it this way: #238

239 posted on 01/27/2008 8:33:42 AM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG

I won’t reply point-by-point, because I agree with just about eveything you stated. Certainly there are not enough conservatives, and that’s the driving factor behind the current primary debacle. I do think, had conservatism been proven to work, it would’ve won converts. However an increasing number of Americans (in both parties) are interested in using the big stick of government to achieve their goals. And for that I have no solution.


240 posted on 01/27/2008 8:59:50 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Rush4U
'How dare you have the temerity, the ingratitude, after all we've done for you?'

What else would noe expect from a Cracker?
241 posted on 01/27/2008 1:24:54 PM PST by Fred (McCain..'HIS EGO IS WRITING CHECKS HIS BODY CAN'T CASH')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rush4U
'How dare you have the temerity, the ingratitude, after all we've done for you?'

What else would one expect from a Cracker?
242 posted on 01/27/2008 1:25:18 PM PST by Fred (McCain..'HIS EGO IS WRITING CHECKS HIS BODY CAN'T CASH')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion

Backatcha.

I agree when you say “had conservatism been proven to work, it would’ve won converts.” But the problem I see is: what is the problem here? The chicken or the egg?

If there were more conservatives, more conservatism would have been tried and, therefore, more would have been proven to work.

When Bush tried to appoint Myers to the Supreme Court, for example, conservatives piped up in large numbers. However one recalls the narrative from there, the basic fact is that conservatives in the grassroots made a huge difference to the outcome on the Supreme Court.

But there wasn’t one other issue on which conservatives were able to have a similar effect-—mainly because the numbers weren’t there on any one issue. (Just like conservatives were not, or for some reason did not, raise one of the more conservative candidates out of the bottom tier in the presidential race.)

That said, it seems to me, in the above scenario, that it’s also important that the one time conservatives were able to directly influence the outcome of a political act (the appointment of Supreme Court justices), it was critical that there was one person-—the President-—on whom to focus conservative wrath-—as opposed to on many congresscritters.

When one person is making the nomination, and that one person is taking the heat, and that one person is able to say to his party and the opposing party, “this act is demanded by my base and they fought me over it, they will surely fight you,” well, clarity happens.

When you start talking about the grassroots trying to herd the cats of Congress, however, the chance of bringing enough pressure to bear on the right center of gravity is infinitely smaller.

If conservatives want any chance of influencing a president like Bush was influenced in the Myers situation, they should focus on getting a president elected out of their party, regardless.

Bottom line: (1) there don’t seem to be enough conservatives; and (2) the influence of conservatives has been decreased to the extent there has been an increase in the “my way or the highway” mentality (because this works against sufficient numbers of conservatives coalescing around an issue/candidate).


243 posted on 01/27/2008 10:08:30 PM PST by fightinJAG ("Tell the truth. The Pajama People are watching you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko

Great post!


244 posted on 02/06/2008 9:48:32 AM PST by TenthAmendmentChampion (Global warming is to Revelations as the theory of evolution is to Genesis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Another great post, one that requires a lot of thought. It would explain McCain’s rise in the Republican party: strong foreign policy but weak domestic one.


245 posted on 02/06/2008 9:58:34 AM PST by TenthAmendmentChampion (Global warming is to Revelations as the theory of evolution is to Genesis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Comparative Advantage

Not even close to true.

The Congress set that all up, and 80% of it is from entitlement spending that has been locked in since before they came on board.


246 posted on 02/20/2008 2:40:18 PM PST by WOSG (The 4-fold path to save America - Think right, act right, speak right, vote right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


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