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

click here to read article


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

I do know this, you cannot continue to nominated good, honorable men and women and have them put through this buzz saw knowing full well that at the very least they will never get out of the committee and at the worse have their reputations ruined and careers ended.. The democrats have announced loud and proud their intentions so, if it was me, I would not give them the satisfaction. The "bully pulpit" will not work when it comes to judicial nominations, most people could care less and public pressure is just not there.

101 posted on 03/18/2002 8:08:27 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: BluesDuke
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.

I do know this, you cannot continue to nominated good, honorable men and women and have them put through this buzz saw knowing full well that at the very least they will never get out of the committee and at the worse have their reputations ruined and careers ended.. The democrats have announced loud and proud their intentions so, if it was me, I would not give them the satisfaction. The "bully pulpit" will not work when it comes to judicial nominations, most people could care less and public pressure is just not there.

102 posted on 03/18/2002 8:10:30 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

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

I may have missed something, but it seems that the Republicans have been dancing in the blood of 9/11 for a police state every bit as much as we feared the libs would have. The Patriot act, federalizing airport screeners, floating national ID card trial balloons, opposing the armed defense of the cockpit, facial recognition cameras, etc. Then we have all of the appeals to the left and middle ground with "education reform" and an absolute immigration bonanza with our Latin American brethren.

Sometimes I wonder if the libs would have gotten away with it, but with "our guys" running a bigger and more intrusive gov't, we all say it's OK, as long as we get the SCOTUS stacked in our favor.

I say that you need more conservatives rather than RINO Republicans. Would the 104th Congress have been the way it was without The UNIBANGER in the WH? I think not.

It would take some convincing for me to see RINO Republicans as being any better than the dim-wit Left. Ashcroft is supposed to be a conservative.

But to answer the original question of "what makes a Republican a REPUBLICAN?"
It would seem from recent emperical data that a conspicuous lack of any vertibrate matter is the most common trait.

I have never seen so many, with so many winning issues, and so much support and so much money get shouted into submission by so few with so little and no winning issues. If you are going to be a Republican, you need a thick skin and some testicular matter - not some ex cheerleader, bag of hot yuppie air, who thinks that a slick hair cut and a "just pumped the cat look" is all it takes to lead.

Lizzie Dole for Senator??? Is there no one else in North Carolina? Honestly? That is it? What is her issue? Kittens and warm milk, flowered meadows and children laughing? If we are pinning our hopes of regaining the Senate on that empty suit, we have bigger problems than we can possibly fathom.

103 posted on 03/18/2002 8:33:25 PM PST by Orion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Orion
Well, look. You can concentrate on electing Democrats if you wish. I'm going for the Republicans. Thanks, Jim
104 posted on 03/18/2002 8:36:13 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Jim,
I have never helped elect any Dem. I have worked phone banks, walked precincts, pimped candidates in my newspaper column, sponsored debates, and been a real go-getter for the GOP in my 16 years of adulthood. The brand of GOP that we now have in power has lost its compass and is adrift with no direction. The biggest expansion in the police state in my lifetime came under GOP governance. With that, the crowd roared in approval. They make no effort to reduce the scope of taxation. Sure, the rates went down by a fart in a windstorm's amount (they had a GOP house and senate with a GOP president - WOW what courage!) The welfare stare marches on, and we still think there is something to the GOP other than maintaining power at any cost. They don't know what to do with their power. Liberal twinkies like Lott, GHWB, Chaffee, Giuliani, Dole, Dole, are the standard bearers of "our" party. I'm old enough to remember when Reagan, Roth, and Kemp cut taxes with a Demoncrat House. They didn't whimper in with a few bucks here and there, no, they took a meat axe to the Federal appetite for taxes. They stood tall and proud. The libs said the sky would fall, and it did when that horrible excuse of a "conservative" signed the largest tax increase in our history in 1990.

Your site is dedicated to the restoration of a constitutional republic. I applaud that. Tell me, what has the modern GOP done to further your goal? Your fellow FReepers have detailed just how they have done the opposite.

Orion's Maxim If you have a boot stamping on your face, forever, the political pursuasion of the person wearing the boot is irrelevant.

The only thing that scares me about the GOP police state, over the Dem police state, is that we are smart enough to know what we are doing.

105 posted on 03/18/2002 8:53:17 PM PST by Orion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Orion
Robinson's Maxim: If you vote for anyone other than a Republican you are supporting a Democrat.

Good luck.

106 posted on 03/18/2002 10:53:31 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

Comment #107 Removed by Moderator

To: Jim Robinson
If you vote for anyone other than a Republican you are supporting a Democrat.

I have a question for you:
Would you rather vote for David Schippers or Trent Lott for an elected office?
Sorry, I hate to shoot a hole in your maxim.

108 posted on 03/21/2002 10:20:40 AM PST by Joe Driscoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
As you mentioned the 17th earlier, visit this link sometime to see some of the reasearch done on this site on that issue.

Seventeen Threads

109 posted on 03/21/2002 10:32:12 AM PST by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Joe Driscoll
I'd rather have a Republican controlled Senate than a Democrat controlled Senate.
110 posted on 03/21/2002 12:06:13 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
Thanks for the 17th link - it was a good one.
111 posted on 03/21/2002 7:10:15 PM PST by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
You have sold your soul, huh?

So sad.

112 posted on 03/21/2002 7:27:28 PM PST by Critter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Critter
Where ya been, oh hairy one?

You trying to stir the pot again?;^)

113 posted on 03/21/2002 7:31:22 PM PST by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
Well, to be honest, I can only stand reading so much of this republican brown nosing, before I have to take another couple of weeks off from here, so I only show up once or twice a month for a read or two.

You know that I can't resist a quick stir though, huh? :)

How ya been baldy?

114 posted on 03/21/2002 7:54:05 PM PST by Critter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Critter
My soul brought in $5.00. My body was only worth a buck ninety eight.
115 posted on 03/21/2002 8:31:42 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; Dales
Jim, I like your Maxim and abide by it myself. A third party can't win. I don't understand why people who are so gung-ho about a party that will never have the power to make any change don't put their energy into changing a party that does have the power.

Dales, have you seen this thread? Bookmark it please. I still haven't touched my book, but I'm getting caught up so I'll be able to read it soon.

116 posted on 03/22/2002 1:16:44 PM PST by Ms. AntiFeminazi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Orion
I may have missed something, but it seems that the Republicans have been dancing in the blood of 9/11 for a police state every bit as much as we feared the libs would have.

This is overemotional dishonest rhetoric worthy of a leftist.

117 posted on 03/22/2002 1:19:27 PM PST by Ms. AntiFeminazi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Ms. AntiFeminazi
Well, in my opinion, it would require a truly earth splitting issue for enough Republican and Democrat voters to switch to a third party to win an election. In Lincoln's day, it was slavery. There is no issue today that is so large and controversial that would cause the people to lose faith in the existing two party political structure. Not that such issue might not come up someday. Abortion? Gun control? Drugs? Free Speech? Corruption? Taxation? Economy? Immigration? Foreign policy? All of these issues ebb and flow depending on the party or people in power. The one thing that marches on is ever-expanding federal government and its resulting loss of our individual freedoms. Perhaps one day people will say enough is enough, but I do not see it happening anytime soon.
118 posted on 03/22/2002 1:43:47 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
One of the problems we face is that government is so intrusive into our lives in so many aspects that we cannot choose a single issue to bolt a party over no matter how strongly we may feel it. They have us surrounded.
119 posted on 03/22/2002 1:52:47 PM PST by Ms. AntiFeminazi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Ms. AntiFeminazi; Jim Robinson
no matter how strongly we may feel about it.

It's easy to type fast when you leave words out. lol.

120 posted on 03/22/2002 2:07:28 PM PST by Ms. AntiFeminazi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: So_Tired; Jim Robinson
And when both of you are right, what then?

When I figure out an answer to that, I will write a book and make millions. Because you both are right, and the answer is elusive.

Right now it is very frustrating to be a conservative. Or at least that is how I feel.

121 posted on 03/22/2002 4:09:33 PM PST by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I bet I know what the issue will be, and if I am right I figure that means we are about 25 years from the next great upheaval.

Reparations.

It isn't being taken seriously enough now to cause such a rift, but there are the usual suspects trying to get it there. Unless there is a marked breakthrough in things, I would imagine that in a quarter century or so, they will have the idea pushed enough that it will be actually being considered.

And that is when the trouble begins...

Just my guess

122 posted on 03/22/2002 4:12:34 PM PST by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Ms. AntiFeminazi
Thanks for the bump.

As soon as I see Taft being discussed in a serious and thoughtful manner, then you have my attention! :-D

123 posted on 03/22/2002 4:14:12 PM PST by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow; Ms. Antifeminazi
The author of this piece has obviously only read the typical, conventional wisdom about Robert A. Taft. He has some of the ideas and themes right, but also misses out on some of the other core issues.

Was Taft an isolationist? Depends on the definition of the word. Yes, he opposed American imperialism or expansionism. However, he also felt strongly that we should be part of an international order, favored the establishment of some sort of world court based on the rule of law, felt the problem with the League of Nations was that it did not have enough authority. He was in favor of tarriffs, but also opposed governmental intervention in trade (and yes, this was a contradictory stance). He felt that we should have unfettered trade as much as was possible without damaging our industries at home.

He was very much a constitutionalist, but at the same time he also felt that the federal government had a role in education; MAF, if you get around to it you could provide the quote by looking in the index for the page where Taft talks about the role of education.

What makes Taft such an intruiging persona to me is that both the Buchanan brigade and the Bushies both could look at their guy and say that he represents what Taft was about; he was the best of both factions wrapped up in one, but without any of the now-requisite charisma.

He is by far and away my favorite old-time politician, and his philosophy and teachings are misrepresented entirely too often, much in the same way that Barry Goldwater's are.

We could use some more Tafts and Goldwaters (before he got old and started losing his conservatism) these days. And if they were around, you know where they would be?

Front and center within the Republican party.

124 posted on 03/22/2002 4:24:33 PM PST by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Orion
but it seems that the Republicans have been dancing in the blood of 9/11 for a police state
Either you are a Green party member at heart, or you were brought up by enough of those types that you speak the language even if you don't buy their shit wholeheartedly.
125 posted on 03/22/2002 4:42:03 PM PST by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Dales
I can see I'm going to have to start and finish this book before I complete the other book I made you read. (are you really Evelyn Woods? lol)

There is no reference to "education" under Taft and no reference to "Taft" under education in the index. I'll have to read the book to find the quote you're looking for. Ping me again in a month. lol.

126 posted on 03/22/2002 4:43:05 PM PST by Ms. AntiFeminazi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Ms. AntiFeminazi
Hrmph. If I had the book right in front of me, I could dig that quote out in a New York minute. I might have to go through some boxes tonight.

Basically, he was talking about how the Feds had a responsibility to be involved, but that every benefit provided must be wedded to a responsibility by the people.

Taft was the original compassionate conservative.

127 posted on 03/22/2002 4:45:46 PM PST by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Ms. AntiFeminazi
Hello, MAF. Long time no see!
128 posted on 03/22/2002 4:47:08 PM PST by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
Hi rdb3 :) CFR got me worked up. I've posted more in the last 3 days than I have in months. lol.
129 posted on 03/22/2002 4:50:03 PM PST by Ms. AntiFeminazi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

Comment #130 Removed by Moderator

To: Jim Robinson
Believe it or not, we need more McCains.

Woops! Better bend over and pick up that marble that just fell out there! Wouldn't wanna lose that! LOL

131 posted on 03/22/2002 8:24:23 PM PST by Bump in the night
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: So_Tired
Probably very true.

But I would offer that this is unlikely to change (an understatement) so a much wiser thing to do would be to learn to use the system as it exists to our advantage. I would also offer that the US has done pretty well over its history with a primarily two party system, and that nations with many parties have not done as well.

I like the Club for Growth's model. Find RINOs in safe districts and work to defeat them in the primary. Best of both worlds.

132 posted on 03/22/2002 9:25:35 PM PST by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Dales; Ms. AntiFeminazi
Either you are a Green party member at heart, or you were brought up by enough of those types that you speak the language even if you don't buy their shit wholeheartedly.

Nope...
Wrong on both counts...

My GOP and conservative credentials are as long as you can get for someone 34 years old. It does not take a genius to see that the GOP is signing on to making the country more "secure" at the expense of personal liberty. John Ashcroft may be a fine Christian conservative, but how do you square the whole Patriot Act? GWB is touted as a "conservative" by most FReepers, but how do you discount all the "bi-partisanship" he displays. I hope you like having your party and your president repeal your First Amendment. The GOP runs the House, the GOP has more than enough votes to block cloture in the Senate, and the GOP president is going to sign a repeal of the First Amendment. The GOP sponsored the bill.

How are school vouchers coming along? What do you think of the GOP running the government that wants to tap your e-mail and monitor any phone you pick up. Islamic terrorists killed a few thousand of our citizens, and we can't profile them, because we want the NYT to like us. No, we shake down everyone in the name of fairness. Guns in the cockpit to prevent future attacks? Hell, no!!! Your GOP president put a liberal in charge of the DOT, and gun searches happen to every car that enters many airport garages (not the secure areas of the airport). How is that for the 4th and 2nd Amendment protections?

The Great Gringo was going to allow a few million more Mexican peasants into our social welfare system, but then 9/11 slowed him down. Now, we hear that it is still under consideration. Too bad he doesn't speak broken Norweigan.

How many times does the GOP have to stab conservatives in the back before we throw the RINOs out of power? Judging by all the FReepers watching GWB like crazed spider monkeys watching the banana channel, it seems like we have a ways to go.

A GOP police state is no better than a liberal police state. At least with the liberal police state, it will be staffed with morons.

Pass the jingoistic kool-aid...

133 posted on 03/22/2002 10:49:31 PM PST by Orion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Ms. AntiFeminazi
This is overemotional dishonest rhetoric worthy of a leftist.

The government has wanted "roving wire taps" for years, but lacked the political muscle to get it through Congress and the courts. This would enable them to monitor any citizen, on any phone, without a warrant on only the flimsiest of evidence. It is kinda like the old East German STASI, but I reach too far back into history (1985).

The bodies were still warm from 9/11 when I saw Ashcroft with my own two eyes state that this is a good time for roving wire taps. This kind of gov't power would not have stopped Atta and his vermin from killing our fellow countrymen, because the gov't did not know what the Atta and crew were doing in the first place, just like they don't have the foggiest idea what the hordes of aliens are doing in our country (and they don't care, BTW). The same gov't that thinks the repeal of the 4th Amendment (and the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, & 10th for that matter) would solve terrorism, granted Atta a VISA six months to the day after we knew he committed the biggest crime in our history. WTFO?

So, Ms. AntiFeminazi, take your dimwitted view of recent events, and your penchant for mislabeling folks that bring up things which are uncomfortable to you, and go back to drinking that mind-numbing swill that all those RINO-republicans have you drinking and keep telling yourself

"...If we only let the Left win on a few more items, they will have peace with us and allow us to implement our programs..."

Sometimes we all have to look in the mirror and admit the people we support can be backstabbers and liars.

What would Madison say about the modern GOP?

134 posted on 03/22/2002 11:07:09 PM PST by Orion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Dales
Find RINOs in safe districts and work to defeat them in the primary. Best of both worlds.

Ahem...

The new Incumbent Protection Act will make that a virtual impossibility.

NEXT!!!

135 posted on 03/22/2002 11:09:42 PM PST by Orion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
bump to myself for later read.
136 posted on 03/22/2002 11:10:21 PM PST by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Orion
That is one reason why I think that the incumbent protection act was a travesty.

And if there was a single more Republican Senator, it would never have made it to the floor- and there were a few losses in November 2000 that might not have happened if not for the votes siphoned off by 3rd party candidates on the right (see Washington state).

137 posted on 03/23/2002 3:21:37 AM PST by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Orion
He would say that they are a hell of a lot better than the Democrats, and that it would be much easier to get control of the Republican party than to build up a third party from scratch.
138 posted on 03/23/2002 3:23:36 AM PST by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Orion
The Great Gringo was going to allow a few million more Mexican peasants into our social welfare system, but then 9/11 slowed him down. Now, we hear that it is still under consideration. Too bad he doesn't speak broken Norweigan.
Am I reading this right? You would prefer some Norweigan immigrants to Mexicans? Why is that? Something about a European culture?
139 posted on 03/23/2002 3:26:59 AM PST by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Believe it or not, we need more McCains. We need more McCains so we can start replacing them without turning over majority control to the other side.

Why can't we replace a 'McCain' with a 'Helms' in the first place?
And I think that the first place to start is not Congress, but the RNC.

140 posted on 03/23/2002 3:39:29 AM PST by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: jla
Please do. Thanks, Jim
141 posted on 03/23/2002 10:45:31 AM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Orion
I'm all for the Patriot Act. I've actually read it. I wonder how the terrorists communicate from one country to another if not by phone or computer?

As far as CFR, I am very disappointed in the President's statement that he will sign it. You can do a search to see just how disappointed I am, but you may be surprised at why I'm disappointed. (btw, has he signed it yet? Why not?)

However, CFR is not the end of the world. It is not the media's responsibility to feed us information regarding candidates and/or issues. It is our responsibility to learn about candidates and issues. How we go about taking on this responsibility and getting others to do the same is something much bigger than CFR itself.

142 posted on 03/23/2002 12:22:37 PM PST by Ms. AntiFeminazi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Please do. Thanks, Jim

I appreciate your candor.

I'd like to see your plan realized of ridding Congress of liberals, and then going after the liberal-Republicans, but I'm afraid my life expectancy isn't as long as a Biblical patriarch's.

143 posted on 03/23/2002 3:43:01 PM PST by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: jla
Well, there are many very well meaning people who think that voting for a third party will improve the situation. It won't. It will only help elect more Democrats. If someone has a viable plan to what will work, I'm all ears (not jug eared, his plan didn't work either). In the meantime, I think it would be wise to kick as many Democrats out of office as we possibly can by electing more Republicans.
144 posted on 03/23/2002 3:46:55 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Ms. AntiFeminazi
I'm all for the Patriot Act. I've actually read it. I wonder how the terrorists communicate from one country to another if not by phone or computer?

If the gov't can monitor "terrorist" communications within the confines of the US, then they can monitor ours. The definition of terrorist will slip and slide to suit their needs.

Why not just repeal the 4th amendment? After all, you have nothing to hide. Why have a constitution in the first place?

The surveillance state is here. Too bad you agree with it. This is why the modern GOP sucks - it is all about gaining power, not about personal liberty.

145 posted on 03/24/2002 1:24:23 AM PST by Orion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Dales
Am I reading this right? You would prefer some Norweigan immigrants to Mexicans? Why is that? Something about a European culture?

Well, my race baiting GOP friend....

My point is that GWB is trying to court the "hispanic" vote to shore up his chances in the '04 election. He speaks some spanish, so that is supposed to make him appealing to Mexicans, and in turn, they will cast off the billions of dollars of federal goodies and become good GOP voters? Right.....

In Texas, we had the pathetic sight of two Dems trying to "out hispanic" each other to get the nomination for governor. It was something worse than the worst pandering the UNIBANGER ever attempted. Dukakis did part of his acceptance address in '88 in spanish to pander to the Latin vote. Now "we" are doing it. Do you see a pattern?

The whole point with Norweigan, is that it is a language which is almost unknown to anyone in the US. I could have put down a language used by darker skinned people, if that would not have offended your sensibilities, but I prefer to smoke out race baiters, when able. It is so easy to smoke out a good little, PC, GOP race baiter by offering anything "white" over "Mexican."

The Mexican immigration experience is an unqualified disaster. Almost no effort is made toward assimilation, and loyalties are almost exclusivly Demoncrat. It is a peasant labor force, that votes accordingly. Scandinavian decendants in America (or Scandi-Americans if your PC sensibilities will allow), do not cluser in communities which bear no resemblance to the host country, like Central American immigrants do. You can walk through Scandi-American neighborhoods (if you can find them) without fear that your next stop is the emergency room or morgue. You don't see massive voter fraud, street demonstrations in support of that fraud, with the Norweigan flag flying over the Stars and Stripes.

Scandinavian immigrants would be expected to join the workforce and raise their children to be responsible US citizens. There would be no pressure group championing thier "rights" as immigrants.

One PC point of order...Latins are white, at least they were until they realized they could get an entire array of social goodies by claiming to be their own race, and that race is not white (caucasian).

No, there is nothing inherently superior about European cultures. There is something wrong with unchecked immigration and empty-headded politicos who pander to that vote at our expense. There is something to be gained by having immigrants who don't think that because of their year-round suntan, they are entitled to be a pain in the ass, and not assimilate.

If GWB spoke Norsk, rather than Spanglish, I doubt you would see him pander to Scandi-Americans - that was my point.

146 posted on 03/24/2002 1:53:41 AM PST by Orion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


147 posted on 03/24/2002 2:03:05 AM PST by spodefly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Dales
He would say that they are a hell of a lot better than the Democrats, and that it would be much easier to get control of the Republican party than to build up a third party from scratch.

True, a third party is not going to happen, unless a total collapse of the economy or substantial military defeat takes place. RINOs are only useful for organizing the chamber, and that is significant. Other than that, RINOs are unpredictable and take the party to the left (to keep their loyalites). Sometimes, it is good to buck the RINOs, take your lumps, and then regroup without them. Your message stays conservative, and the RINO option is less appealing. I would guess that the majority of GOP reps are conservative, but they waiver to keep the RINOs in the big tent. Screw the RINOs and tap into the disenfranchised conservatives by using "wedge" issues. The GOP would have a 2/3 majority if we quit pandering to the "ethnic" vote, and proposed shutting down the border, scrapping the income tax, and cutting the welfare rolls to the bone.

Too bad we all think the NYT reflects America.

148 posted on 03/24/2002 2:06:55 AM PST by Orion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Orion
So you make a comment about Norse people as opposed to Mexicans, and I am the race baiter?

You have a screw loose.

149 posted on 03/24/2002 2:27:14 AM PST by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Joe Driscoll
Let us know when Shippers runs for office!
150 posted on 05/06/2002 9:09:13 AM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | 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