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

Skip to comments.

What Makes a Republican - a REPUBLICAN?
NewsCorridor ^ | March 10, 2002 | Sartre

Posted on 03/12/2002 11:34:12 PM PST by ThePythonicCow

The only method by which people can be supported is out of the effort of those who are earning their own way.
We must not create a deterrent to hard work.
 
 - Robert A. Taft

We have spent the better part of the last half century forgetting the reasons that Republicans are part of an American First tradition and the real meaning of the GOP. Just what are the principles and policies that separate the platform of Republicans from that of the Socialists that wear the Democratic label? Sorry to say, not much of a difference presently exists; let alone a dedication to enact legislation that counters the legacy of FDR. It wasn't like this - once upon a time . . .  For Republicans knew what they were all about and had an example of a true champion of principle in one, Senator Robert A. Taft.

Taft is most famous for his opposition to Franklin Roosvelt's New Deal Legislation and policies. He has been called the last "Old Right" political.  While some may conclude that this description points out that we have 'moved on', the essential question remains. Were the policies of Taft the real essence of Republicanism? Principles never die, changing circumstances only seek out appropriate applications. Liberty of the individual was the hallmark of Taft that earned him the name, Mr Republican.  The New Deal's expansion of federal power at the expense of state and local government is incompatible with the core  bedrock of Republican philosophy. Taft vigorously urged economy in government and restoration of balanced budgets, while supporting a very limited role in foreign affairs. He voted against NATO, supported strong tariffs, opposed the draft and sponsored legislation that bears his name, the Taft-Hartley Law.

If Republicanism isn't about opposing the Federal Income Tax and the Federal Reserve System, just what did the party ever stand for to begin with?

When it comes to foreign policy, the last century is one of "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace". Taft speaks directly to this point:

"Fundamentally, I believe the ultimate purpose of our foreign policy must be to protect the liberty of the people of the United States. The American Revolution was fought to establish a nation "conceived in liberty." That liberty has been defended in many wars since that day. That liberty has enabled our people to increase steadily their material welfare and their spiritual freedom. To achieve that liberty we have gone to war, and to protect it we would go to war again . . .

Only second to liberty is the maintenance of peace. . . . Our traditional policy of neutrality and non-interference with other nations was based on the principle that this policy was the best way to avoid disputes with other nations and to maintain the liberty of this country without war. From the days of George Washington that has been the policy of the United States. It has never been isolationism; but it has always avoided alliances and interference in foreign quarrels as a preventive against possible war, and it has always opposed any commitment by the United States, in advance, to take any military action outside of our territory. It would leave us free to interfere or not according to whether we consider the case of sufficiently vital interest to the liberty of this country. It was the policy of the free hand."

In his book, Principles Without Program: Senator Robert A. Taft and American Foreign Policy - he conveys his views as core Republican principles that are as valid today as they were when originally written. So why does the Republican Party work overtime to run in lock step with the Socialism of the New Frontier, Great Society and New World Order? The answer is obvious, the Republicanism has been removed from the party and has been replaced with a neo-conservatism sham that is a betrayal of America's tradition.

How many remember the names of these brave leaders that fought so hard to retain the promise of the American way of life? Just what was their cause and why do most Republicans ignore their heritage? Taft sums up nicely the purpose of their task:

"There are a good many Americans who talk about an American century in which America will dominate the world.... If we confine our activities to the field of moral leadership we shall be successful if our philosophy is sound and appeals to the people of the world. The trouble with those who advocate this policy is that they really do not confine themselves to moral leadership. They are inspired by the same kind of New Deal planned-control ideas abroad as recent Administrations have desired to enforce at home. In their hearts they want to force on these foreign people through the use of American money and even, perhaps, arms, the policies which moral leadership is able to advance only through the sound strength of its principles."

Robert Taft believed in the "Federalism" model of the American Republic. His faith was in basic American values and the abilities of the people to seek Liberty. Achieving this goal requires that such liberty is founded upon an economic system based on free enterprise, a political system based on citizen participation, and national independence and sovereignty for our country.

Internationalist Republicans have become mutants, with the abdication of purpose for their party. Just what is the point of having two shades of the same color when that hue is one and the same in Socialism. If you say the debate is over and the future belongs to the most popular collectivist, then America is already deceased.

Even under the great Ronald Reagan, the Departments of Education and Energy continued. Just look at the record! When was the last time a 'so called' conservative remained ardent in the fight against social democracy? Taft's principles are timeless because they represent the best chance for the freedom of a free people. Or does that idea scare so many, that Liberty is no longer our mutual objective? With the dawn of this new century, it is time to remember the common sense of past generations and devote ourselves to the reinvention of practical policies that apply those principles to our current condition. Anything short of this reformation, will confirm that the GOP has lost it's way. Rediscover what a Republican really means . . .

© 2002 SARTRE


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: taftfederalism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151 next last
To: nopardons
PS: A vote is like a dollar, you have to earn it.

The GOP is selling a product. Will you pay for it?

Political parties don't "deserve" votes any more than buisnesses do. They market a product and try to earn your vote.

You sound like the kind of person who would open a buisness and then chase people down the street cursing at them if they refused to purchase your inferior product.

Not a good buisness model, imVho.

Hell, just beat that dollar out of them.. That's got to be good for buisness, right?

51 posted on 03/13/2002 1:38:53 AM PST by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
My letter to the President


Mr. President. If you sign a bill, granting illegal aliens amnesty, I cannot vote for you ever again. My support for the GOP in general is even in doubt.

You know, the democrats are handing out anything and everything in the hopes of purchasing my vote, but I vote on principle and thus far I have ignored them. Doing the right thing was motivation enough to vote Republican.

So you can understand how dissapointed I am to find out that the "party of principle" has comprimised itself for it's own self interest. I AM SUPPOSED to remain balanced on principle, while the party sells itself out..? It's an insult.

It's an insult to my intelligence.

People talk about "Political Capital" and how that you have enough to simply steamroll the wishes of average Americans because of the War Effort.

And my answer to that argument is: "What's capital investment without sales?"

I am one less "sale" you will have in 2004 if you grant law breakers status President Bush.

I am forced to observe every, stupid law ever written.. right down to the last letter, but yet an entire class of criminal get's a pass? Like I said before, it's an insult to me.. A slap in my face. Just how stupid do these people think I am anyway?

Please tell me that you have more respect for than this.

Regards and best wishes, Jhoffa_X

(now, I am really going to bed.. oh geez. )

52 posted on 03/13/2002 1:52:06 AM PST by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Well, if there were enough people of principle then obviously we would not be having this problem. But I do not see the numbers of that exclusive group growing very rapidly, so what do we do in the meantime?

We must recognize that we're losing the war in politics because we are losing the culture war. Although I believe it's a two-flank battle--keeping an eye on government (the unique responsibility of a free people) and fighting threats to the culture, I believe that the latter is the primary flank. Yet it's the aspect of the battle that gets the least attention because it's much easier to deal with political issues than it is to tackle moral and spiritual ones.

In short, if we don't do something to change the spiritual state of this nation, our troubles will only get worse. The solution to our governmental problems is an indirect one. One that emphasizes a change in the hearts of Americans, one by one, who in turn will impact this nation for the better.

53 posted on 03/13/2002 2:09:50 AM PST by Egg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Egg
Makes sense to me. However, it's gonna take a long long time to change enough hearts one by one to make a difference. In the meantime, I'm hoping to do all I possibly can to help win about three or four more Republican Senate seats come November. Otherwise, it's gonna be a long long time before we get any cooperation from the Senate.
54 posted on 03/13/2002 2:20:58 AM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I agree with your post #2 for the most part, but I wonder...how do we ferret out the RINO's
(like Jumpin' Jim Jeffords or John McCain) before they get into office?
It seems like state Republican Committee offices are being run by liberal (infil)traitors
...and not just in VT...NJ and CA come to mind...
55 posted on 03/13/2002 2:28:32 AM PST by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine
Well, maybe more of us should infiltrate those offices.
56 posted on 03/13/2002 2:35:39 AM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
In the meantime, I'm hoping to do all I possibly can to help win about three or four more Republican Senate seats come November.

That's the first flank, and certainly no waste of effort. But what about the second, more long term?

57 posted on 03/13/2002 2:47:13 AM PST by Egg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Egg
I don't know.
58 posted on 03/13/2002 2:47:46 AM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
So why does the Republican Party work overtime to run in lock step with the Socialism of the New Frontier, Great Society and New World Order? The answer is obvious, the Republicanism has been removed from the party and has been replaced with a neo-conservatism sham that is a betrayal of America's tradition.

Jim, I have been an unhappy Republican for 40 years watching them get in step with the Democrats. I am fed up with their definitions of right and wrong. When are we going to follow the Constitution again? I will vote 3rd Party until I see definite changes in the House and Senate. They're lying to us Americans about everything that they do. I have never heard a Republican Senator admit that they are following Agenda 21 page by page, nor have I heard any of them ask for our help in stopping the NWO that was designed in the United Nations 60 years ago.

I must thank you for bringing all of these political crimes to the forefront on your website for America to see and discuss.

59 posted on 03/13/2002 3:31:34 AM PST by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; jIM rOBINSON;NAFVET;SNOW BUNNY;BRIAN ALLEN;BLACK JADE; JOHN HUANG2
When was the last time you heard a Republican Senator express pride for having voted for NAFTA. This is probably the most destructive piece of legislation to our country in the past 50 years. The Patriot Act is the most destructive piece of legislation to our freedoms and liberty. Both of these were promoted by REPUBLICANS !
60 posted on 03/13/2002 3:43:19 AM PST by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
+ - =
61 posted on 03/13/2002 3:55:17 AM PST by Caipirabob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glory
bump for later read
62 posted on 03/13/2002 4:09:18 AM PST by glory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
Who needs democrats with republicans like these?
63 posted on 03/13/2002 4:19:42 AM PST by antidemocommie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
and that its ruling principle is: justice

Capitalism can only serve man well when tempered with a modicum of morality. Without the morality, capitalism is no better than socialism and potentially worse.

With the ratification of the sixteenth and seventeenth amendment to the Constitution, it simply became a matter of selecting which form of corruption a person prefers. There remain today basically only two forms of corruption from which to select, Republican corruption or Democrat corruption. Generally, I have preferred the Republican corruption as it is usually more productive but there is also merit in some of the Democrat corruption. Both parties have been successful in corrupting justice.

64 posted on 03/13/2002 4:26:11 AM PST by MosesKnows
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
#2) " Vote out the Democrats. After you get the worst of the socialist lot of the Democrats replaced, then you can make it more conservative yet, by eliminating the worst of the lott of the Republicans."

Jim, the only problem with your solution is that political incumbents are re-elected 97% of the time. That gives us a 3% chance of executing your plan.

The only areas I see political success for our side is on the internet and on talk radio. If we continue to strenghten these two tools and concentrate our voting impact at the lowest local level (starting at the school board), we could begin to dent this beast...

65 posted on 03/13/2002 4:32:54 AM PST by Jethro Tull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
If Republicanism isn't about opposing the Federal Income Tax and the Federal Reserve System, just what did the party ever stand for to begin with?

Talk about throwing down the gauntlet. Are either of these goals realistic for the GOP in this day and time? I could roll with them but can anyone else?

66 posted on 03/13/2002 6:49:21 AM PST by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged, they say.
67 posted on 03/13/2002 6:51:56 AM PST by Jadge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Well, maybe more of us should infiltrate those offices.

That's a good word. Amen.

68 posted on 03/13/2002 10:24:12 AM PST by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch; GeronL; jIM rOBINSON;NAFVET;SNOW BUNNY; BLACK JADE; JOHN HUANG2
Sadder and sadder!
69 posted on 03/13/2002 11:59:21 AM PST by Brian Allen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
That is it, in a nutshell. Now, if ONLY the more radical FReepers and one issue FReepers would wake up to tis fact, all would be well.

Maybe things would be all well around here, but in terms of the electorate, those radical Freepers and one issue freepers probably don't add up to more than 2% of the popular vote nationwide. They may be a benefit, by giving conservatives something to be to the left of, which may help make them more palatable to the "center" voters.

70 posted on 03/13/2002 12:05:14 PM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Your post # 2....is exactly right. I cannot thank you enough for saying this.Thank you.
71 posted on 03/14/2002 8:55:18 PM PST by Snow Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
In other words, you're gonna have to make government a whole lot more Republican before you can make it conservative.

Great theory, however in practice few Republicans can be considered conservative. And if conservative means smaller, less government, neither party represents this ideal.

---max

72 posted on 03/14/2002 9:06:28 PM PST by max61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: max61
Are you saying Democrats are more conservative than Republicans?
73 posted on 03/14/2002 11:11:00 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Are you saying Democrats are more conservative than Republicans?

Doesn't look like either one of 'em is very "conservative" to me.

As a rule, they're both groups of political opportunists, saying and doing whatever is necessary to maintain power, without regard for it's impact on the republic or it's constitution.

74 posted on 03/18/2002 7:14:08 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Senate best and brightest
Senate worst and dimmest
House best and brightest
House worst and dimmest
75 posted on 03/18/2002 10:33:32 AM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
great links.. thanks Jim

David

76 posted on 03/18/2002 10:37:44 AM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
We need more McCains...

About as badly as a cobra needs a mongoose.
77 posted on 03/18/2002 6:04:30 PM PST by BluesDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: BluesDuke
The point is we need more R's. We must retake the majority in the Senate. Thanks, Jim
78 posted on 03/18/2002 6:08:28 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: BluesDuke
About as badly as a cobra needs a mongoose.

I am completely at a loss -- how does that guy, who constantly preaches one thing but does another, maintain this lofty status with the folks?

79 posted on 03/18/2002 6:08:45 PM PST by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Exactly - and it doesn't matter where those 'R's come from. The RNC needs to understand that it is important to elect Republicans from anywhere they can be elected.

I know that defeating Hillary was a big deal, but if SOME of the money that went to one Republican candidate (Lazio) had been more evenly spent on four other close races, we would have control of the Senate, even without Jeffords. Sometimes our national party organization gets stuck with an East Coast bias just like the media.

80 posted on 03/18/2002 6:14:28 PM PST by TexasNative2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
Annie, check out post number 2.
81 posted on 03/18/2002 6:22:22 PM PST by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
The point is we need more R's. We must retake the majority in the Senate.

No, we must find and elect candidates who believe in freedom, in individual rights and sovereignty, and in properly construed government, rather than an improperly consecrated State. Remember when the Republican Party stood for that and acted on it? OK, maybe that question is a little unfair, since it was the year Johnny Vander Meer pitched his back-to-back no hitters...
.
Jim, I have always liked and respected you and what you have tried to do with FreeRepublic.com. But unless there is something very different in the offing of which I'm yet to be aware, I've seen nothing to this date to indicate to me that we've got anything better than liberalism with a libertarian-conservative face. Maybe I've heard too many promises and seen too many hypocrisies in my 46 years; maybe I fumed too harshly when a Republican Party that had Droopy-Drawers Clinton on the ropes and primed for the knockout came up with nothing better than jamming Mr. Let's Make A Deal down the party's throat in 1996 (and I still think the party leadership should have been sentenced to dinner, dancing, and a hotel reservation with Lorena Bobbitt for that one - that was as good as saying that Droopy-Drawers could run on a parking ticket and win, the damned cowards), but the only thing in which I believe sight unseen is God. For any and everyone else, I will believe it when I see it. And not one moment sooner.
82 posted on 03/18/2002 6:29:48 PM PST by BluesDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: MississippiDeltaDawg
I am completely at a loss -- how does that guy, who constantly preaches one thing but does another, maintain this lofty status with the folks?

Hmmmmmm...because ignorance is bliss? Or - and I mean no dis against anyone who has ever worn the uniform and fought for this country and all the people thereof - because a real or alleged war hero can get away with something short of capital murder, if you remember how criticising Senator McVain so often brought thee and me denunciation for daring to speak ill of a friggin' prisoner of war, fer crissakes! And there people like we were, trying to convince such members of Assoholics Anonymous that it said nothing against McVain's bravery as a POW to point out that, politically, he was somewhere at a level barely above the paramecium... ;)
83 posted on 03/18/2002 6:32:40 PM PST by BluesDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: BluesDuke
Hey, it's just my opinion. You can take it or leave it. But the reality is, the Senate is going to be Democrat or Republican. I would rather it be the latter. Thanks, Jim
84 posted on 03/18/2002 6:44:03 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: BluesDuke
Yes, I suppose I will always be hit with the "Until you've walked a mile in his shoes" mantra -- although I thought one of the great blessings of being a citizen of this country is that I'm allowed to criticize the pols all I want, regardless of whether or not I've been through the same ordeals. Hey, my life's been no bed of roses ... who's has? Somehow I don't find former POW status an instant immunity to hypocrisy.
85 posted on 03/18/2002 6:50:28 PM PST by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
As it's just mine, too, old friend. We have at least this much in common: we care. Maybe too much. In terms of party, right now I'm an orphan. In terms of principle, I like to think I've got family out there. - BD.
86 posted on 03/18/2002 6:50:42 PM PST by BluesDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: MississippiDeltaDawg
Hey, my life's been no bed of roses ... who's has?

Your local florist.

Somehow I don't find former POW status an instant immunity to hypocrisy.

Neither do I. And neither, you probably don't need me to tell you, do a lot of former POWs who would themselves be among the first to denounce such hypocrisies.
87 posted on 03/18/2002 6:53:16 PM PST by BluesDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
Says it all.
88 posted on 03/18/2002 6:54:35 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: BluesDuke
LOL!

(Hey, for what it costs for roses these days, they're probably using $100 bills for blankies!)

Dawg says howdy -- nitey-nite for now!

89 posted on 03/18/2002 6:57:08 PM PST by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
We need more McCains so we can start replacing them without turning over majority control to the other side.

I don't see how that will work. The McCains don't care about America at all - only about getting attention and perks for themselves. They hold the party back with their power to change sides (like Jeffords - how many concessions were made to keep him happy before he actually jumped ship?) held over the leaders' heads.
Unless you mean we need very sick Republican Senators who may die in office and can then be replaced with a conservative by the party.

90 posted on 03/18/2002 6:57:24 PM PST by ValerieUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA
Sheesh. Forget I said it. I was just responding to someone's absurdity with an equally absurd comment. My opinion is that we need to retake Republican control of the Senate. It ain't that complicated. Now you can take my opinion and add a buck seventy-five and you still may be short for a cup of coffee. Besides, I doubt there are any McCain clones out there. Thanks, Jim
91 posted on 03/18/2002 7:19:53 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA
Valarie, it does make a big difference if someone has a R beside their name. The Senate AND the House do their major business in committees. If you look at the times the GOP holds the majority and you look at who chairs those committees, you will find very few RINOs in that position but having that R by their name enables the conservatives to chair the committees. The RINOs serve a purpose in that it helps avoid what we just saw on the Judicial crucifixion.
92 posted on 03/18/2002 7:27:05 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
...on the Judicial crucifixion

That's a polite way to put it. Where I come from, what was done to Mr. Pickering would be called buggery. And if you'll pardon my Stengelese, it looked to me like there were amateurs holding the Vaseline pot.
93 posted on 03/18/2002 7:41:32 PM PST by BluesDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Your #2 post is the answer and we all must work very hard to make it happen.
94 posted on 03/18/2002 7:45:48 PM PST by ruoflaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: BluesDuke
And if you'll pardon my Stengelese, it looked to me like there were amateurs holding the Vaseline pot.

That will look like a ladies sewing circle if the Senate majority is widened by the democrats. Bush will never get a supreme court justice through that vipers nest. I feel that Bush should withdraw all nominations to the bench until the mid term elections are over. We can survive without judges but we can't compromise with judges that have the democrat seal of approval.

95 posted on 03/18/2002 7:47:54 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: All
The little (R) behind the name.

Duh.

:D
96 posted on 03/18/2002 7:49:17 PM PST by Saturnalia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
I feel that Bush should withdraw all nominations to the bench until the mid term elections are over.

I have to admit, I was kind of surprised Mr. Bush didn't do precisely that in the first place. Long years of watching politics tell me that one of the least safe times for a president to ponder judicial nominations is when election season begins.
97 posted on 03/18/2002 7:52:29 PM PST by BluesDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
You're right. No McCain clones. Thank goodness. You don't have to sheeeeesh at me - I'm not that exasperating (really I'm not, just ignore my reputation *L*)
98 posted on 03/18/2002 7:55:29 PM PST by ValerieUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
You are so right! So many times on this very forum, I have seen freepers say they are so mad at the Pubbie leadership that they intend to vote for a demoRat in the next election to show them they mean business!
I just can't understand the logic in that!
The real enemy is the Socialist democrat, which includes most of the elected members of that party.
99 posted on 03/18/2002 7:57:51 PM PST by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA
Ok. Sorry about that.
100 posted on 03/18/2002 8:02:59 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


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