What Makes a Republican - a REPUBLICAN?

NewsCorridor ^ | March 10, 2002 | Sartre

[Shooter 2.5]

Annie, check out post number 2.

[BluesDuke]

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.

[BluesDuke]

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... ;)

[Jim Robinson]

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

[MozarkDawg]

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.

[BluesDuke]

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.

[BluesDuke]

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.

[anniegetyourgun]

Says it all.

[MozarkDawg]

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!

[ValerieUSA]

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.

[Jim Robinson]

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

[Texasforever]

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.

[BluesDuke]

...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.

[ruoflaw]

Your #2 post is the answer and we all must work very hard to make it happen.

[Texasforever]

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.

[Saturnalia]

The little (R) behind the name.

Duh.

:D

[BluesDuke]

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.

[ValerieUSA]

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*)

[ladyinred]

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.

[Jim Robinson]

Ok. Sorry about that.