Posted on 04/26/2005 7:27:21 AM PDT by Lazamataz
Well, they went and did it.
The Republicans look like they will wimp out, not exercise the so-called Nuclear Option, and Harry Reid will PERMIT two judges to be approved and disapprove four others. Does anyone think for a second the Democrats won't "go nuclear" in a heartbeat if the roles were reversed?
This seals the deal for me. I am a Republican no more. It seems it does not matter if I vote Republican anyways, all I get is more liberalism. I am a man without a political party. I am a conservative without a home.
Between Bushes enthusiastic embrace of illegal immigration, and our party's inability to get even moderately conservative judges approved, what's the freakin' point of voting Republican any more? What's the point of voting? I will get liberalism no matter how I vote. My main issue is guns, and it appears the Democrats have learned their lesson on that one, so it appears I will be safe on the firearms front. Everything else the Republicans stand for, they stand for in word only. They do not seem to want to act. Therefore, I do not seem to want to vote Republican any more.
This is my Opus -- not from Free Republic, but from the Republican party. Even when they have the majority, they surrender.
The Republican Party is the France of politics.
Wouldn't that be a recount?
Oh, wait, this isn't Washington state.
Shalom.
Laz....Welcome to the enlightened!!! How does it feel to be out of the cave? I left the "Spelunker Party" almost three years ago and have absolutely no regrets.
Would that make Laz the France of all things matrimonial?
Same here.
Likewise!
P.S. -(Consider that the Liberals spent half a century laying the groundwork before they had enough power to do the damage that they have done to our republic.)
" I cannot seriously believe Frist is so stupid as to compromise on the filibuster issue."
The republicans seem to think that using the power of the majority is playing 'dirty'. I, sadly, must agree with Laz.
I am tempted to vote Dem and push for them, then when they win all major positions, I will quietly aim my residence to Costa Rica.
F' it folks, we get what we deserve.
I think you mean Sybill.
The only "Carrie" I can think of was the Stephen King character who was telekenetic. No psychosis other than the usual Hollywierd (and King) stereotype of a Christian mother.
Shalom.
I share your anger at the RINO's, they are bigger hypocrites than the dems, at least with the dems you know what you are getting. Post #43 is dead-on and that is the place to start.
Jeez, no WONDER you don't have any faith in the government...
There once a Republican named Lazamataz
Who got all upset and started to spaz
I’m leaving the party
Their voting is tardy
Running from problems won’t help, it never has.
It's all about not being elected Pope.
I had a lovely pair of heels and stockings to wear to my Inaugeration, too.
Actually, opera could be the correct choice here as somone winds up to sing. LOL
Endorsing problems helps less.
Laz,
I don't think I agree with you on all counts, and like some others here I think you're jumping before the facts are in, but I stand with you on this.
When 2006 rolls around, the Republicans will have either used or squandered this golden session. I call it a golden session because the President doesn't have to worry about re-election, and we have majorities in both houses. The last time any President had this much alignment was in 1992, and without even the benefit of the second-term presidency.
We all saw what the Dems did in those two years. Jammed the courts full of internationalist weasels, nearly managed to go past the breakpoint on gun 'control,' and only failed to socialize medicine because like all evils, they were too greedy and ravenous and their true character showed.
I think Republican politicians are wary of being Newt-ered by the MSM if they're as bold as the Contract with America. As a result they're allowing Democrats to set the agenda, dictate which appointments will be allowed, and generally continue to run the place.
There's a difference between the CoA of 1994-1996 and the Clintonoid nightmare of 1992-1994, though. After Newt's actions, we continued to hold Congress. We would have won in '96 if any candidate stronger than Bob "Hi I speak of myself in the third person" Dole was around. Our momentum has grown, not faltered, since 1994, because unlike liberal ideas, when the truth about conservative ideas becomes known to the public, they rejoice, not cringe.
If the Republicans understand this one point, we can convert this golden opportunity into decades of ripple effects of freedom. If we don't, we *will* lose in 1996, because the one thing people can't stand are 'leaders' who lack the courage of his own convictions.
Not nearly everyone will leave the party (I won't), or go vote Libertarian or something; but they may stay home. That would be enough to seal our loss.
In a nutshell, our guys (and gals) need to remember that they cannot win by merely trying not to lose votes. They must win by winning votes, and the way to do that is to act.
The Conservative Party has a nice ring to it, don't you think?The question is: How are you going to conquer the whole country if you couldn't even conquer your own party?SURE DOES!
I think it would be more reasonable to keep trying to win over the entire party and throw out the RINOs. Didn't Goldwater and Reagan do something similar in earlier times?
Are you serious? (hands on hips) You can't be serious! (raised eyebrow) Was conservatism cool when you became a Repub?
;you're right. thanks for the correction. Got my Stephen King mixed up.
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.