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

Skip to comments.

Our View: Keep the House Republican
HUMAN EVENTS ^ | Apr 21, 2006 | Masthead Editorial

Posted on 04/21/2006 11:58:30 AM PDT by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last
To: Republic_of_Secession.

Conservatives are going to be facing tough decisions when at the polling station.

Not that tough! Vote to keep the Repubs in power or sacrifice it to the Dims. I, for one, do not wish the latter.


21 posted on 04/21/2006 1:12:18 PM PDT by wolfcreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This "Bush will get impeached if the 'Rats win the House" is nonsense. You act like he's already guilty and the Republican House is the only thing standing in between him and impeachment!


22 posted on 04/21/2006 1:22:24 PM PDT by manwiththehands (Lead, follow or shut up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Think judges!

Exactly. It would be better to lose the House than the Senate. Though we need a more conservative Republican Senate. Since the House tends to overspend no matter what, it would better to go back to blaming Democrats for that angle. They can't actually increase spending all by themselves anyway.

23 posted on 04/21/2006 1:25:20 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
So help in the primaries like Chafee's and DeWine's to dump the RINOs.

I'd be glad to. But if that effort fails, then we're back to square one.

24 posted on 04/21/2006 1:39:19 PM PDT by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: 12th_Monkey
But we must keep the Republicans in the majority in '06, if not it will be impeachment, censure and higher taxes.

It requires 2/3 of the Senate to get an impeachment conviction, and I don't think there's anything close to that.

As for higher taxes, we appear to be headed for that either way, unless we can really reform the party in time. Doing that successfully will likely involve the application a little tough love. Republicans had a chance right after the '04 elections, when they were riding a wave of popularity, to get the tax cuts made permanent. Instead, they lunged right toward Social Security, pushing a plan of dubious benefit that had little popular support. That started the new term off on a very sour note that made it difficult to push any further toward the Republcans' domestic agenda.

Sometimes, a temporary setback is the price that needs to be paid in order to get the lead out.

25 posted on 04/21/2006 1:48:14 PM PDT by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands
You act like he's already guilty and the Republican House is the only thing standing in between him and impeachment!

Not quite. I just remember Conyers and Pelosi well enough to understand that the hard left wants revenge for the impeachment of the first black president, for which you only need a majority of the House. They never forgave Bush for 2000.

26 posted on 04/21/2006 2:03:36 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
You need a majority only to indict, not to convict. And an indictment without a conviction will only backfire on the Dems.
27 posted on 04/21/2006 2:10:39 PM PDT by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: inquest

I have sung along with a Republican party that refuses to do anything about our invasion by "Illegals" for too long. Twenty years ago, I went to Tijuana and viewed the filth and corruption and said, "Thank God for the United States!"
Ten years later I visited a local flea-mart and cried, "Oh no, Tijuana is here!"
Now, I only have to visit the local mall or see the Mexican-gang grafitti all over town to realize Tijuana is everywhere.
Our emergency rooms, jails and social service offices ar overwhelmed by Illegals.
Politicians bully voters into supporting one of the "Do nothing to secure our borders," parties by declaring that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. Too bad! To me, Illegal Immigration is the number one problem facing our nation! That "We can worry about that after we are returned to power," crowd can stifle. I will vote only for candidates who will vote to stop the invasion. If both candidates are for open borders I will leave that portion of my ballot blank. I've had enough!


28 posted on 04/21/2006 2:45:01 PM PDT by Focused Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands
I couldn't agree more! We need to fire the current lot, deal with two years of Democrats, and then replace them with conservatives.
29 posted on 04/21/2006 2:50:00 PM PDT by al_again
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
There is simply no case whatsoever to impeach Bush. And if the 'Rats win the House this year do you think they will be able to impeach Bush? C'mon! It's ludicrous! It's paranoia! If they take every single seat, how much of a majority will they have? 12? 16? Not one Republican will vote for it ... and I'm certain as the sun shines that more than enough 'Rats will vote against it.

Don't worry. Be happy. Bush will NOT be impeached EVEN IF the 'Rats win the House this year.

But I'm just looking for ONE BIG FIGHT at home from Bush before he leaves office. I don't want to regret voting for him twice.

30 posted on 04/21/2006 2:52:56 PM PDT by manwiththehands (Lead, follow or shut up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

There's a touch of "blame the victim" reasoning in this issue. President Bush and the pubbie leadership are destroying this nation with their immigration policy failure. Yet, if we, the victims, fight back, we are blamed for the mess that ensues.

President Bush and the pubbie leadership are to blame, and if they fail to correct their path, they will be causing the loss of majority status, not us, their victims.


31 posted on 04/21/2006 3:04:00 PM PDT by savedbygrace (SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest
You need a majority only to indict, not to convict.

House impeaches Clinton

Votes largely fell on party lines

"The first article alleging Clinton lied under oath when he testified before Independent Counsel Ken Starr's grand jury about the details of his extramarital affair with Lewinsky was adopted on a 228-206, largely party-line vote. Only five Democrats voted for that article, and five Republicans against.

"Article II failed 229-205, with many more Republican defections.

"But the GOP majority again prevailed, 221-212, on Article III accusing Clinton of obstructing justice by tampering with witnesses and taking other steps to conceal his affair with Lewinsky."

The Senate convicts with a two thirds vote. The dems would impeach if they had the chance, regardless of the unlikely chance of conviction in the Senate. This is not a loyal opposition. They will do anything for political gain.

32 posted on 04/21/2006 3:08:09 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The Senate convicts with a two thirds vote. The dems would impeach if they had the chance, regardless of the unlikely chance of conviction in the Senate. This is not a loyal opposition. They will do anything for political gain.

It's not a question of loyalty. Attempted impeachment convictions that fail are not likely to work out well for the party bringing the impeachment, politically speaking. It'll make them look shrill and petty in time of war.

A straight party-line vote, which is what this would be, would not make the Dems look good. They need to get a few liberal Republicans onboard (like McCain and Specter) so that they can market themselves as "bipartisan". Without that, nobody but the most diehard Democrats will buy into their game.

33 posted on 04/21/2006 3:51:57 PM PDT by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: inquest
It'll make them look shrill and petty in time of war.

They already look like that but it hasn't stopped them from retaining a very high majority of seats. If they gain any then the shrillness and pettiness will have paid off. Never overestimate the intelligence of the voting public.

34 posted on 04/21/2006 8:37:20 PM PDT by raybbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
The fact that Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House, despite the media onslaught in favor of the Dems, is evidence enough that there is a limit to what the Dems can get away with.
35 posted on 04/21/2006 8:58:22 PM PDT by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
A few of these musings seem as if coming from a lunatic asylum.

You would actually allow Democrats control over our national security and over our men and women in the armed forces in the childlike fantasy that the Democrats would then be immediately be replaced by more-conservative Republicans??

The surefire result of this: 1) becoming a political eunuch; 2) directly acquiescing in the destruction of our nation.
36 posted on 04/21/2006 9:04:26 PM PDT by mtntop3 ("He who must know before he believes will never come to full knowledge.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtntop3
A few of these musings seem as if coming from a lunatic asylum.

I can understand their frustration.

You would actually allow Democrats control over our national security and over our men and women in the armed forces in the childlike fantasy that the Democrats would then be immediately be replaced by more-conservative Republicans??

No, I didn't. Check my name. What makes you direct that comment to me?

37 posted on 04/21/2006 9:19:32 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Focused Fury
I'm with you......if these lunatics in the Republican leadership pass this amnesty bill we are looking at over 40 million uneducated, and poor new citizens in just over 10 years time !

Think of it.....the entire current population of California plus 7 million third world peoples in 10 years. It's utter madness, mass suicide.
38 posted on 04/21/2006 9:24:59 PM PDT by NHFREE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I used the pronoun,"you", to pose the indicated question collectively to those who hold such views.


39 posted on 04/21/2006 9:41:02 PM PDT by mtntop3 ("He who must know before he believes will never come to full knowledge.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 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