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

Skip to comments.

Bush Signs McCain-Democrat Campaign Finance Bill; Republicans File Suit
Newsmax.com ^ | March 28, 2002

Posted on 03/27/2002 4:03:29 PM PST by rightwing2

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-195 next last
To: Texasforever
I don't know about you ole buddy, but I think whatever is good for conservatives is good for America.
121 posted on 03/27/2002 9:02:11 PM PST by FatherTorque
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
Actually it will be a Bush who once again will give us another Clintonista.

Let me ask you this do you support Sen. McCain or is he too simply being a brilliant strategist by removing his oppositions "issues" by advancing their democratic agenda?

I stand by my prediction that given just Bush's first year of advancing the democratic agenda that he will be the one to force many conservatives to abandon the RINO party and vote based on their conservative beliefs and not their "strategies".

If it takes the next ten elections to net us a conservative party then so be it. But this RINO corps has got to go!

We must seek out those who can stand on their conservative beliefs and values and challenge forcefully, eloquently the liberal agenda and not capitulate to them.

It was George Bush Sr and Lynn Nofziger that gave us Bill Clinton not Ross Perot.

122 posted on 03/27/2002 9:12:57 PM PST by Kay Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Can you imagine Dashcle and McCain being more marginalized ?
No.
123 posted on 03/27/2002 9:18:57 PM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
What candidate could the major 3rd parties come together on that would meet the single "deal breaking" issues that draw their different supporters? Who out there could possibly be "constitutional" enough, "anti-abortion" enough, "free trading" enough, "isolationists" enough, "libertarian" enough, "socially conservative" enough to satisfy the factions that would comprise that new "base". A base that is always at war on each and every item I listed?
124 posted on 03/27/2002 9:24:46 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
Actually it will be a Bush who once again will give us another Clintonista.

This is absurd. Bush - while imperfect - has been a very good president, but that is beside the point.

If Hillary Clinton is elected President of the United States - Commander in Chief of the United States Military - in November of 2004, that political blood is on the hands of those who cast the votes. If that includes you, congratulations. You'll no doubt be proud of your accomplishment, and it looks like you'll have plenty of company.

You're disappointed? You ain't seen nothin' yet. When Hillary Clinton is POTUS and Bill Clinton is back in the White House smoking cigars, you purists will have no one to blame for that disaster but yourselves. Then maybe you'll remember what disappointment really is.

And I'm sure the men and women in the military will be thrilled with your choice.

125 posted on 03/27/2002 9:26:44 PM PST by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

Keep it up, Bush bashers. You might just get your wish.


126 posted on 03/27/2002 9:36:20 PM PST by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
Please excuse my question but who was the POTUS that said the following words in refrence to any further investigations of Bill & Hillary Clinton? "Let's move on" Blame comes to those who do not seek justice of those who have wronged this nation, but rather brush it off for political expediency and political gain. Now who shares the blame? He put his stamp of approval of the conduct of the former POTUS and unfortunately as well continues many of his policies.

Any future cases of Hillary Clinton defeating Bush or anyone else would be due to his {Bush's} own negligance to uphold his oath of office. In other words why were they not tried in a court of law? "Let's move on" was the Bush response to 8 years of the Clintons unlawfull conduct. This is easy enough for even stooge to understand.

127 posted on 03/27/2002 10:32:08 PM PST by Howard_Fine_&_Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
I agree...well said.
128 posted on 03/28/2002 12:14:01 AM PST by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
"You're disappointed? You ain't seen nothin' yet. When Hillary Clinton is POTUS and Bill Clinton is back in the White House smoking cigars, you purists will have no one to blame for that disaster but yourselves. Then maybe you'll remember what disappointment really is."

"Comrades!" he cried. "You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privelege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organization of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for your sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades," cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, "surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?"

-- Animal Farm, George Orwell


129 posted on 03/28/2002 12:24:44 AM PST by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999

Hope he sent over some of these.

130 posted on 03/28/2002 12:33:48 AM PST by pepperhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Doc On The Bay
I still trust the man--he's "done the right thing so far---"

Agreed

131 posted on 03/28/2002 2:46:50 AM PST by evad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
Keep it up, Bush bashers. You might just get your wish.

No no Daughter...don't confuse legitimate concern and dissent with bashing. It is the nature of Conservatives to be very critical..especially of their own. In the long run we still support the man but we have to show our disappointment when it's required....and it IS required.

132 posted on 03/28/2002 2:58:43 AM PST by evad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
In regards to McVain and flying monkeys complaining about no face time at CFR signing you wrote:

To which the White House replied, "Hey, we had a senior Bush administration official call his office, and we're going to send him a pen."

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh baby-it just does NOT get any better. McVain can't complain to much or he will look like a spoiled, petty loser over his very smucky win. Love it. Yep. JUST LOVE IT!

133 posted on 03/28/2002 4:10:21 AM PST by Republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Your words are meaningless. "The Republican Party is the home of conservatism" nonsensical with just a shallow observation.

Essentially, what you've done is forgive every Clinton scandal had he had an "R" tacked on to the end of his moniker instead of a "D".

I don't believe that, and only an unprincipled liberal could. Don't give us any crap about not being able to move away from the Republican Party because there isn't another game in town. That argument is Stalinist in nature and certainly turns people off from voting altogether rather than force them to choose between Lenin and Stalin at the voting booth.

After y'all have been betrayed hard enough, often enough, come Vote Libertarian.
134 posted on 03/28/2002 4:17:08 AM PST by Maelstrom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: FatherTorque
IMHO, you would advance our agenda at the cost of four more years of Gore? No, it is not an acceptable choice. Sorry, but I'm going to go for a batting average. The all-or-nothing hitters strike out too much.

Sorry, but what you ask for is unacceptable.

135 posted on 03/28/2002 4:32:32 AM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
IMHO, you would advance our agenda at the cost of four more years of Gore? No, it is not an acceptable choice. Sorry, but I'm going to go for a batting average. The all-or-nothing hitters strike out too much.

Sorry, but what you ask for is unacceptable.

Thank you. SO VERY WELL STATED !!!!!!

136 posted on 03/28/2002 6:31:10 AM PST by Southflanknorthpawsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Not after I get done with the rats
TLBSHOW, I just love you!
137 posted on 03/28/2002 7:32:30 AM PST by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
If we can't trust the Supreme Court __________ to know the Constitution
Seems as if there's a lot of this going around. :(
138 posted on 03/28/2002 7:34:55 AM PST by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: evad
No no Daughter...don't confuse legitimate concern and dissent with bashing. It is the nature of Conservatives to be very critical..especially of their own. In the long run we still support the man but we have to show our disappointment when it's required....and it IS required.

No no evad...you misunderstand me.

I'm not confusing anything; I have no problem with legitimate, informed concern.

What I have a problem with is the "I campaigned for him, but he's lost my vote!" crowd.

If you've been reading what I've been reading on FreeRepublic since this bill traveled through Congress and made its way to the President's desk, I have no idea how you could say, "In the long run we still support the man..." You may, but clearly, many do not.

After reading Bush's statement and after hearing his comments in a press conference the other day, I have no doubt that signing this bill was a strategy to kill parts of it for good. Still, the perpetually dissatisfied around here will hold it against him even if the strategy works...and if we have another Clinton presidency because of them, I, for one, will never let them hear the end of it. They may as well be Democrats, as far as I'm concerned - the end result will be the same.

139 posted on 03/28/2002 7:54:53 AM PST by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: toenail
That's an interesting way of making your point, but let's stay in the non-fiction section. Hillary Clinton is real. The threat of her becoming President of the United States is real. If that is your choice (and make no mistake - that IS what you're choosing if you vote third party) and you're comfortable with it, have at it.

As for me, I will fight with everything I have to see that those of you who want to hang Bush over this thing don't take the rest of us down with you.

140 posted on 03/28/2002 8:03:45 AM PST by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-195 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