Replies

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.

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.