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

Skip to comments.

56,429 Huckabee Supporters Refused to Vote for Hutchinson in AR on Nov. 5
AR Secretary of State (statistics) | 12-23-02 | Theodore R.

Posted on 12/23/2002 6:32:25 PM PST by Theodore R.

In the AR general election of Nov. 5, 56,429 persons who supported the reelection of Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee (a 53 percent winner) did not vote for Republican Sen. Tim Hutchinson (a 46 percent loser). Huckabee polled 427,082 votes, compared to Hutchinson's 370,653.

It is believed that many of these 56,429 persons were Christian conservatives who objected to Hutchinson's divorce and remarriage to a young staffer. Their actions enabled the Democrat senatorial candidate, Attorney General Mark Pryor to unseat Hutchinson and resume the Pryor family dynasty in AR. While Hutchinson was strongly prolife, Pryor is expected to support abortion on demand but perhaps not partial-birth abortion. Ironically, in upholding the highest standard for their candidate, Republicans in AR allowed the far more liberal choice to emerge victorious. When will Republicans stop shooting themselves in the foot? Besides Huckabee, the only other Republican statewide winner was the pro-abortion Lt. Gov. Winthrop Paul Rockefeller, a 60 percent winner.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; US: Arkansas
KEYWORDS: 2002; ar; fisher; governor; huckabee; hutchinson; pryor; senate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

1 posted on 12/23/2002 6:32:25 PM PST by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
It is believed that many of these 56,429 persons were Christian conservatives who objected to Hutchinson's divorce and remarriage to a young staffer.

"He who is without sin among you; let him throw a stone at her first". John 8:7. Or was there a third party conservative candidate these people might have preferred to Hutchinson?



2 posted on 12/23/2002 6:40:52 PM PST by who knows what evil?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
During the Clinton administration, we conservatives repeatedly insisted that character mattered. Are we now to pressure Christian conservatives into a pragmatic course, ignoring the issue of character, just because it serves our purposes? Isn't this moral decline a factor in producing the spinelessness that has disaffected many conservatives. If consevative leaders cannot show themselves to be better than their liberal opponents, then what difference does it make who we elect?
3 posted on 12/23/2002 6:42:41 PM PST by Jerrbear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Tim "But I Married Her" Hutchinson did not deserve to be re-elected. His defeat was the proper choice by the voters. He should have not sought re-election and let someone else run on the republican ticket.
4 posted on 12/23/2002 6:45:23 PM PST by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Something democrats don't have to worry about
Their supporters have no standards
5 posted on 12/23/2002 6:46:55 PM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
We don't like our face... so off with the nose!


HOW TYPICAL of judgemental and sectarian Conservatives...

idiots!
NOW we have a bona fide baby killer, rather than alleged adulteror, whose wife supposedly left him before the "affair" in a divorce action HE did not contest... Sure, that'll advance our cause and make us look less like idiots overall.
6 posted on 12/23/2002 6:47:33 PM PST by Robert_Paulson2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jerrbear
Yes, you are right in your assessment from the standpoint of morality. But politics is not the sport of the pure -- only the less imperfect. And our people will keep paying the price, I guess, as the Democrats prosper. But if one stands only on moral principle at all costs, perhaps he had to withhold their vote in the AR Senate race. Still, I suspect that many of those who deserted Hutchinson will in other races in time take the pragmatic approach and set aside principle from time to time.
7 posted on 12/23/2002 6:47:40 PM PST by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
Yes, but the AR Republicans NOMINATED Hutchinson. Someone with moral standards opposed him in the primary, but being the incumbent, he won the primary fairly easily.
8 posted on 12/23/2002 6:49:16 PM PST by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
It is believed that many of these 56,429 persons were Christian conservatives who objected to Hutchinson's divorce and remarriage to a young staffer. Their actions enabled the Democrat senatorial candidate, Attorney General Mark Pryor to unseat Hutchinson and resume the Pryor family dynasty in AR.

What a pile of crap.

No one owed Hutchison their votes.
If he was too sleazy for the Christian conservatives, whose fault is that?

It was Hutchison's own behavior that turned off voters that were his to lose, and that's what enabled "Attorney General Mark Pryor to unseat Hutchinson and resume the Pryor family dynasty in AR."




9 posted on 12/23/2002 6:53:27 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
It was more than the divorce that beat Hutchinson. He ran a poor campaign, and Pryor's father was a long time fixture in AR politics and was from the more republican part (western) of the state. Therefore, Pryor limited Tim's lead in areas he would have to carry to win the election. AR is NOT a pub state...only one congressman and neither senator is a pub.
10 posted on 12/23/2002 6:58:48 PM PST by arkfreepdom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Jim Bob Duggar was not a legitimate candidate for U. S. Senate.
11 posted on 12/23/2002 7:05:41 PM PST by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Another instance of "canonized conservatives."

They'll have to live with a pro-choice Democrat for six years.

12 posted on 12/23/2002 7:12:15 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
I think it was not just the action that cost him but the fact Tim Hutchinson wore his piety on his sleeve. His sanctimonious hypocrisy cost him.
13 posted on 12/23/2002 7:17:08 PM PST by RJCogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Gee, I guess all one has to do is say, "It is believed" and it's an automatic, the Christians did it. They have no evidence to back that up with.
14 posted on 12/23/2002 7:18:49 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
That'll teach them damn democrats
15 posted on 12/23/2002 7:20:05 PM PST by dwilli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jerrbear
During the Clinton administration, we conservatives repeatedly insisted that character mattered. Are we now to pressure Christian conservatives into a pragmatic course, ignoring the issue of character, just because it serves our purposes?

Exactly! Excellent reasoning. I'm sure Hutchinson is a good guy, but we should demand moral accountability in our leaders.

16 posted on 12/23/2002 7:22:15 PM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dwilli
That'll teach them damn democrats

Maybe it will help educate the fraudulent, the phonies, the fakes, and those who support them.

17 posted on 12/23/2002 7:29:46 PM PST by RJCogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Politics trumps religion. You have to win to do your thing. Christian Conservatives are givng "voting your conscience" a bad name.

It doesn't matter what kind of campaign he ran — his election would have helped the good guys and hurt the bad guys (good over evil for you religious types).

18 posted on 12/23/2002 7:30:20 PM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jimer
his election would have helped the good guys and hurt the bad guys (good over evil for you religious types).

The end thereby justifying the means.

19 posted on 12/23/2002 7:31:29 PM PST by RJCogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
SIX YEARS: Does anyone honestly think that a Pryor in AR will be confined to a 6-year-run, more like 24, 30, or 36 years, you mean? But six for now.
20 posted on 12/23/2002 7:33:57 PM PST by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
The end thereby justifying the means.

There is no end — it's an ongoing struggle (open ended parable for you religious types).

21 posted on 12/23/2002 7:35:35 PM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Hutchinson may have made a mistake in his past, but I would not vote against a person just because they had a divorce and remarried. Hutchinson had I think around a 100 rating from the ACU and supports the same things in office that most christian conservatives would. It's sad that he will be leaving.
22 posted on 12/23/2002 7:36:31 PM PST by UofORepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
I did not know, Cogburn, that Hutchinson was sanctimonious and hypocritical. Do you know the circumstances of his divorce? I do recall that in the 1996 contest, he nearly lost a teenage son in an auto accident, or some kind of accident.
23 posted on 12/23/2002 7:38:29 PM PST by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: who knows what evil?
The same crowd had an attitude towards the "divorce" president... reagan, though he still was elected.

Any man who has been divorced, had sex with more than one woman in his lifetime, or even thought about having sex with more than two women is an "evil adulteror" in the minds of some...

By that measure, ONLY JESUS did NOT commit adultery... and the kid died before reaching puberty. If the standard is NO SIN, or NO FAILURE, we cannot ever win anything at all.

When a woman leaves a man, abandons the marital bed, or "departs" (or the reverse) the remaining partner is free to marry again, without the stain of adultery, so says paul the apostle... But we cannot know who really left whom in such matters.

Gaining an appreciation for the basic principles of a little GRACE and MERCY might go a long way towards clearing this up. "he will have judgement without mercy who has shown NO MERCY... and mercy laughs in the face of judgement"

who cares, it's not my state. let THEM deal with the choice of a baby killer, rather than the "stigma" of electing a man whose wife allegedly left and divorced her "evil" husband.

If they won't vote for a "sinner" that rules out the entire 288 million of us for ever being in public office. This "smear campaign" worked so well, like it has in the past for other democrat operatives. Smear the conservative with a moral "implication" like they did hershenson in LA... and then the devil worshipping baby killers can obtain and stay in office forever!

REally smart.
24 posted on 12/23/2002 7:39:00 PM PST by Robert_Paulson2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
The end thereby justifying the means.

I don't understand.

The "end" was Hutchinson getting elected.

What "means" did you have in mind?

Are you trying to say that Hutchinson shouldn't have been elected because he'd been divorced, a divorce his wife agreed to?

You're disqualifying lots of folks if that's your criteria.

25 posted on 12/23/2002 7:39:04 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jerrbear
Are we now to pressure Christian conservatives into a pragmatic course, ignoring the issue of character, just because it serves our purposes?

Yes

26 posted on 12/23/2002 7:39:14 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Pryor ran on his "arkansas first" platform and alot of people went for it. of course i can't complain, i didn't register in time to vote(moved to a new county). if would have voted for hutchinson, despite the fact he ran a lousy campaign.
27 posted on 12/23/2002 7:39:29 PM PST by sonofron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert_Paulson2
"...and the kid died before reaching puberty"should have been"and perhaps the kid who died before reaching puberty..."
28 posted on 12/23/2002 7:41:57 PM PST by Robert_Paulson2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
They got what they wanted. But they lost what they had.

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

29 posted on 12/23/2002 7:42:16 PM PST by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Scoreboard:

Divorce
Christian Conservatives
1
0

30 posted on 12/23/2002 7:44:05 PM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
The raw numbers clearly show that over 56,000 who voted for Huckabee did not vote Republican for senator. That is not in debate. The reasons for their decision can, however, be debated. The total vote for governor was 905,332, and the total vote for senator was 803,959. Undoubtedly some voted Huckabee and Pryor. Probably none to speak of voted Hutchinson and Fisher, the Democrat gubernatorial candidate strongly endorsed by AR Bill.
31 posted on 12/23/2002 7:45:23 PM PST by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Correction: the AR gubernatorial vote total on Nov. 5, 2002, was 805,332, just 2,000 more than the senatorial contest total.
32 posted on 12/23/2002 7:49:24 PM PST by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: montag813
Let me offer a hearty "second" to your "yea".
and a hearty AMEN for the wisdom.

stoning the adulteror was NEVER God's answer.
Who among us does not believe the woman "taken in adultery" would not be a better senator than robert kkk byrd?

Conservatives can be very vainglorius and believe that they are holier than God... If God can forgive and restore, we should consider that we are not more holy than him... and do the same for those who change their ways.

Sometimes you have to get away from the "dripping faucet." Or so said solomon... the man with several thousand of them.

Maybe hutchinson had a "dripping faucet" who wanted to leave him for a better "bathroom." Good riddance and move on might have actually been in order. The dems played this morality smear rather well. They KNOW their enemies very very well indeed. Played us like a two bit whore, they did.

Kudos for their incredible skill and damn us for our PHONEY virtues... WE are skilled at snatching defeat from the very jaws of victory. Too bad. Because we could have won even more powerfully than we did, BIG TIME...
33 posted on 12/23/2002 7:50:11 PM PST by Robert_Paulson2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Robert_Paulson2; Theodore R.
Idiot? Please mind your manners- especially when you have no idea what you are talking about. Where do you get your facts, CNN? I am a conservative Christian who voted for Hutchinson but did not vote in the governors race. In other words, I did the opposite of what you and that other know-it-all accused conservative Christians of doing.
34 posted on 12/23/2002 7:50:23 PM PST by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
It is believed that many of these 56,429 persons were Christian conservatives who objected to Hutchinson's divorce and remarriage to a young staffer.

It is believe that many of these were knee-jerk responses by people who

a. never bothered to find out if Hutchinson had grounds to divorce his wife,

b. (if he did not) didn't bother to consider that voting in such a way as to put a Democrat in office could be even more immoral than electing Hutchinson, and

c. are the type of people who'd tell a home invader where the children are hiding because lying to him about it would be a sin.
35 posted on 12/23/2002 7:51:10 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
Something democrats don't have to worry about
Their supporters have no standards

Not exactly. In this instance, Hutchinson not being "pure" enough hurt us, but I think back to 2000, when Algore (of all people!) was not considered enough of an eco-nut for the Nader supporters. It cuts both ways.

36 posted on 12/23/2002 7:54:21 PM PST by hunter112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
Jim Bob Duggar was a three term state representative. He is a telegenic fellow with great magnetism who ran a wretched campaign. He was running because he did not agree with what Washington was doing to Hutchinson, morals wise, but felt he could not say so. Since he and Tim agreed on the issues, that left him with absolutely nothing to say. He tried to beat a sitting senator in a primary with a substancless campaign. That was not a very smart thing to do, but I still don't see why, from New Hampshire, you can look down and say he was not a real candidate.
37 posted on 12/23/2002 7:55:08 PM PST by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
Gee, I never said all conservative Christians deserted Hutchinson. It is highly unlikely that very many voters in AR voted for Hutchinson but for no one for governor, but it happened in your case. Aren't both Hutchinson and Huckabee ordained Baptist ministers? So why did you desert Huckabee? The woman who opposed him was a disciple of AR Bill.
38 posted on 12/23/2002 7:59:21 PM PST by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Jerrbear
During the Clinton administration, we conservatives repeatedly insisted that character mattered.

Of course character matters; but it matters that our characters win, some of which may not be as good as we'd want them to be, rather than yield the majority to their characters who are even worse. To cause by inaction something worse to happen is to be culpable for that worse outcome. Those who stayed home in both the Clinton elections or who voted for a candidate that couldn't possibly have been elected bear partial responsibility for Clinton's time in office; especially for his second term since there was no way anyone who isn't a carrot could plead ignorance of the pestilence that was Clinton. A vote against a worse candidate is better than refraining from voting for a less worse candidate since the former will help prevent a demonstrably worse condition than the latter. The latter is simply self-indulgence.
39 posted on 12/23/2002 8:02:44 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Robert_Paulson2
I suggest you calm down. Stoning adulterer's at one time did seem to be God's answer, and claiming that it never was is very dangerous spirtual ground indeed.

Though I voted for Tim, I feel that God's will was done in this race. Perhaps the best thing that could happen to Tim is that he lost, maybe getting away from Washington will help him. Since the GOP won the sentate anyway, I don't think one baby extra will die by abortion. PBA ban is the only thing that the GOP is willing to do (maybe, or maybe they will cheat us again) and Pryor will vote for that.

In the long run, it is best to insist that our leaders have high moral standards. Such integrity may frustrate the short-sighted, but it is our only hope in the long run of electing good men and keeping them free of the corrosive influence of DC.
40 posted on 12/23/2002 8:04:05 PM PST by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
baloney...

I normally would agree with you.
BUT, this is a consistant pattern with us.

The sooner we admit it and deal with it, the better.
We have a judgementalism problem that is costing us a moral agenda. People make mistakes. We have to learn how to rehab folks who fail... folks like YOU as well as ME... for we all do FAIL, MORALLY and othewise.

Denying we have a problem with judgementalism that is hindering our positive agenda, is like LOTT denying he has a problem with his mouth, whilst being the equivalent of "speaker of the house" for us as "senate majority leader."

We got a problem with the holier than thous.
THEY need to get over thinking THEY can hold people to a higher standard than even GOD does... in something as carnal as human politics.

We have our own moral crisis in the Church and it ain't about divorce and marriage to a member of the opposite sex. Were OUR own house in order, I could see where a little harshness might fit in with our world view... as it is, with pedophilic homosexuals running rampant across denominational lines... we cannot expect a man whose wife left, to stay single like a priest, or widowed pastor.

double standards make me sick, and not just when liberals use them... we have our own double standards.

The blood of children yet unborn is on the hands of those who refused to vote prolife over an ALLEGED affair, after an amicable and uncontested divorce of a good man, by a woman who loathed political life altogether.


Get out of denial. We have a problem with our own double standard and "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at any cost," moral superiority...

otherwise, on the michelle malkin "growl..." I would hasten to agree with you as on other issues. On this one. I don't.
FWIW... and I know it aint much.
41 posted on 12/23/2002 8:04:42 PM PST by Robert_Paulson2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
The decision by these 56,000 AR to permit a follower of AR Bill to go to the U.S. Senate will have ramifications in the state for years to come. And conservative Christian voters in other states will in time be faced with a dilemma similar to their situation with the Hutchinson-Pryor race. So often the Republican candidate is not what these voters are looking for, but they can they sit out the election and permit the opposition to win time and time again?

I have a cousin. She and her husband are Christians, but only she is conservative. The husband is a union official and staunch Democrat. He even put a sign for Mary Landriue in his yard, but I think his wife voted for Terrell. So there are some Christian voters who stand firmly with the Democrats. Remember, it was said in 1996 that perhaps 1/3 of Christian voters deserted the divorced Bob Dole and actually voted for AR Bill's reelection. Yet, many of these Christian conservatives did not hold Ronald Reagan's divorce from Jane Wyman against him in 1980, and certainly not in 1984.

42 posted on 12/23/2002 8:05:30 PM PST by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
get over yourself... christian conservatives who fail to vote for prolife conservatives because of an allegation, unproven, are idiots...

Is that you?
43 posted on 12/23/2002 8:05:47 PM PST by Robert_Paulson2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
...she was not going to win anyway. I don't want to bad-mouth Gov. Huckabee. Let's just say I have my reasons.
44 posted on 12/23/2002 8:06:36 PM PST by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
The wages of sin were always death... but GOD intended for you to kill and eat the fatted calf, not actually kill the adutleror...

"I will have mercy instead of sacrifice" actually means God did NOT want the penalties to be carried out, literally, but that folks would find a merciful way to correct a failed lifestyle of sin...
So...
Calm down yourself... we (who are allegedly christian conservatives) have a problem with the holier than thou attitudes... we effectively kill babies by imposing an unreasoned and impossible standard... and NOT voting for the pro life guy as a punishment to him...

It is a fools form of righteousness... YOU get over it.

45 posted on 12/23/2002 8:10:50 PM PST by Robert_Paulson2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
Fisher got 8,000 more votes than Hutchinson. AR Bill came into the state on the weekend before the election to boost Fisher. It is still remarkable that the people of AR will do as AR Bill instructs them, but of course not every time do they follow his lead. I think the AR voters were at their best in 1980, when they defeated Clinton for reelection as governor. Still they kept the ultraliberal "Dandy" Dale Bumpers in the Senate in that election. I wonder if there is a contingent of voters in AR who wish "their Bill" would come home.
46 posted on 12/23/2002 8:13:25 PM PST by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Actually they DID hold it against Reagan (it was a VERY big deal at the time)... but carter was such a sucking loser, they thought they were all going to die at the hands of Fidel Castro if he got re-elected... and therin lies the problem...

In this case, THEY themselves won't die... just some worthless crack-whore's unwanted "fetus." So, do the moral thing and punish that hutchinson feller, after all who cares if it's not MY child that gets partial birth aborted?

47 posted on 12/23/2002 8:15:23 PM PST by Robert_Paulson2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Why do republicans want conservative votes???? Ask the socialists for theirs.
48 posted on 12/23/2002 8:15:42 PM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert_Paulson2
The sooner we admit it and deal with it, the better. We have a judgementalism problem that is costing us a moral agenda. People make mistakes. We have to learn how to rehab folks who fail... folks like YOU as well as ME... for we all do FAIL, MORALLY and othewise.

This isn't about a guy with a divorce in his past. Reagan had that, and Republicans were OK with that.

This is about a guy who dumped his wife for a younger woman and didn't break a sweat. Screw him and the horse he's riding out on. He shouldn't have left his wife, shouldn't have been so crass, and if he couldn't help that, he should have stepped down and let a decent candidate run.

The real problem in our party is that our politicians think we owe them something, like our votes. My franchise is the currency of my political influence. I'll spend it as I please.




49 posted on 12/23/2002 8:17:02 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Robert_Paulson2
I don't remember Jane Wyman being an issue in any of the Reagan gubernatorial or presidential campaigns. Didn't Jane vote for him in all the elections? I understand that she was a conservative but was not politically involved.
50 posted on 12/23/2002 8:18:02 PM PST by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 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