Statement by Jim Robinson Regarding the State of our Free Republic

October 20, 2003 | Jim Robinson

[LurkerNoMore!]

You two need to get a room

[Bob J]

66 or 70 Republican Senators? Why not 90? Why not 400 Republican Congressmen, while we're at it?

Sounds good! BTW - You're veiled sarcasm implies that having these numbers will result in less conservative legislation and judges. Care to elaborate?

This moving of the bar invites GOP unaccountability.

Empty rhetoric. Maybe less accountability to demanding fringe voters like Libertarians, but not to the general run of the mill conservative population.

We were told in 2000 that we needed to take back the Senate to confirm conservative judges. Then the Democrats fought back. Our party wrung their hands in fury.

Who'd a thunk the dems would have pulled out their crying towels and played rules tricks? Although I think all would agree that Frist needs to play hardball.

Now, we're told we need a veto-proof supermajority, or a rino-veto-proof superdupermajority.

I believe you meant "filibusterproof". A veto proof supermajority would be 2/3rds and is what the dems desire at this point.

Every election, politicians need to fear for their jobs. If a politician doesn't feel that fear, there is no leverage over him. Which voters do politicians fear the most?

The ones from the other party. Oh, and the fringe voters from their own party demanding actions that would turn the 50% middle of the road voters into socialists.

The ones that make or break most elections, and those aren't committed, hell or high water voters, those are taken for granted.

That would be the 50% in the middle, not the 5% superfringe nutcases.

Once a politician knows your vote is in the bag, he'll put golf spikes in your back to get to a swing voter.

So let's hold out our 5% and make demands, because we all know 5% is bigger than 50%.

Getting rid of Democrats is only half the battle; the other half must be fought simultaneously, and that is to get Republicans to act like they have enough of a spine to stand up for the values of their constituents.

Want to help give pubs some spine? How about letting them know you will support them through thick and thin even though you don't agree with them 100%. Conservative politicians are more scared of the liberal press, who are looking to take them out and end their careers, at the slightest misstep they make. This works because too many conservative, particularly the ones willing to jump ship at election time due to a perceived lack of ideological purity, are too quick to dump them as damaged goods.

[Yeti]

LOL!

Pardek's THA MAN!!!!!!

[Senator Pardek]

Oh my - I said FEMALE!

[Indy Pendance]

It took decades for the dems to acheive this level of socialistic control. I would love for it to be acheived in a few short years. (Can I be dictator for a week?) We need to re-educate the population and show them why a conservative agenda is the right thing. This will take time. We can start by using the already in place republicann party, gain a super-majority, then, weed out the rinos. Only then can we truly get our constitution back to the original intent.

[OWK]

Two gay rejections in a row!

Maybe it's your breath.

[Howlin]

LOL! Touche!

[The Raven]

Over the years, I've become less optimistic - even though we one the last election or two.

I think we're headed to socialism and ultimately, when all is "free," the military is gone, and work incentives are nil, we'll collapse into malaise.

The propaganda and court packing of the Dems is accepted by too many people.

[Bob J]

Agreed.

[LurkerNoMore!]

You have always been one of my favorite posters....

And that is no suck-up.

[Indy Pendance]

Good to see you again!

[meatloaf]

Looks like I'm late as usual. Excellent!

[Lancey Howard]

Thanks.

[Bob J]

Obviously, Detroit has a higher percentage of voters who have assumed room temperature than the others.

[suzyq5558]

Jim you and your website have saved me from insanity;0 .i read some the things that badjoe said and i do not know what goes on behind the scenes here at my favorite hangout but ive never seen one thing you've said or done regarding this website that would lead me to believe you are not an honest and great guy devoted to this place.
you've always helped me out with my DUH questions and i for one am so very grateful to you and to your helpers for all you guys do every day to keep me informed and sane!
so keep up the good work and dont let all this stuff whatever it may be get you down.
Iam behind you 100% ,suzyq5558

[OWK]

You have always been one of my favorite posters.

(this is just an obvious and transparent suck-up)

[Sabertooth]

Practically, please tell me how electing a democrat to replace Olympia Snowe helps us.

Practically speaking, tell me how Olympia Snowe not fearing for her job helps conservatism?

On the subject of practicality...

As you can see, I am sceptical of your comment.

Apply that skepticism to your desire for 66 or 70 Senators from a single party.

How many years since 1900 has one party ever held that many seats?

12 at 66+. From 1935-45, and 1963-67 for the Democrats. Never for the GOP.

No party has ever held 70 seats in the US Senate.

		Party of		Party of
Period	Congress	Majority		Minority		Others	President
1789-1791 1791-1793 1793-1795 1795-1797 1797-1799 1799-1801	1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th	Ad F F F F F	17 16 17 19 20 19	Op DR DR DR DR DR	9 13 13 13 12 13	- - - - - -	Washington (F) Washington (F) Washington (F) Washington (F) J.Adams (F) J.Adams (F)
1801-1803 1803-1805 1805-1807 1807-1809 1809-1811 1811-1813	7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th	DR DR DR DR DR DR	18 25 27 28 28 30	F F F F F F	13 9 7 6 6 6	- - - - - -	Jefferson (DR) Jefferson (DR) Jefferson (DR) Jefferson (DR) Madison (DR) Madison (DR)
1813-1815 1815-1817 1817-1819 1819-1821 1821-1823 1823-1825	13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th	DR DR DR DR DR DR	27 25 34 35 44 44	F F F F F F	9 11 10 7 4 4	- - - - - -	Madison (DR) Madison (DR) Monroe (DR) Monroe (DR) Monroe (DR) Monroe (DR)
1825-1827 1827-1829 1829-1831 1831-1833 1833-1835 1835-1837	19th 20th 21st 22nd 23rd 24th	Ad J D D D D	26 28 26 25 20 27	J Ad NR NR NR W	20 20 22 21 20 25	- - - 2 8 -	J.Q.Adams (C) J.Q.Adams (C) Jackson (D) Jackson (D) Jackson (D) Jackson (D)
1837-1839 1839-1841 1841-1843 1843-1845 1845-1847 1847-1849	25th 26th 27th 28th 29th 30th	D D W W D D	30 28 28 28 31 36	W W D D W W	18 22 22 25 25 21	4 - 2 1 - 1	Van Buren (D) Van Buren (D) W.Harrison (W) Tyler (W) Polk (D) Polk (D)
1849-1851 1851-1853 1853-1855 1855-1857 1857-1859 1859-1861	31st 32nd 33rd 34th 35th 36th	D D D D D D	35 35 38 40 36 36	W W W R R R	25 24 22 15 20 26	2 3 2 4 8 4	Taylor (W) Fillmore (W) Pierce (D) Pierce (D) Buchanan (D) Buchanan (D)
1861-1863 1863-1865 1865-1867 1867-1869 1869-1871 1871-1873	37th 38th 39th 40th 41st 42nd	R R U R R R	31 36 42 42 56 52	D D D D D D	10 9 10 11 11 17	8 5 - - - 5	Lincoln (R) Lincoln (R) Lincoln (R) A.Johnson (R) Grant (R) Grant (R)
1873-1875 1875-1877 1877-1879 1879-1881 1881-1883 1883-1885	43rd 44th 45th 46th 47th 48th	R R R D R R	49 45 39 42 37 38	D D D R D D	19 29 36 33 37 36	5 2 1 1 1 2	Grant (R) Grant (R) Hayes (R) Hayes (R) Garfield (R) Arthur (R)
1885-1887 1887-1889 1889-1891 1891-1893 1893-1895 1895-1897	49th 50th 51st 52nd 53rd 54th	R R R R D R	43 39 39 47 44 43	D D D D R D	34 37 37 39 38 39	- - - 2 3 6	Cleveland (D) Cleveland (D) B.Harrison (R) B.Harrison (R) Cleveland (D) Cleveland (D)
1897-1899 1899-1901 1901-1903 1903-1905 1905-1907 1907-1909	55th 56th 57th 58th 59th 60th	R R R R R R	47 53 55 57 57 61	D D D D D D	34 26 31 33 33 31	7 8 4 - - -	McKinley (R) McKinley (R) McKinley (R) T.Roosevelt (R) T.Roosevelt (R) T.Roosevelt (R)
1909-1911 1911-1913 1913-1915 1915-1917 1917-1919 1919-1921	61st 62nd 63rd 64th 65th 66th	R R D D D R	61 51 51 56 53 49	D D R R R D	32 41 44 40 42 47	- - 1 - - -	Taft (R) Taft (R) Wilson (D) Wilson (D) Wilson (D) Wilson (D)
1921-1923 1923-1925 1925-1927 1927-1929 1929-1931 1931-1933	67th 68th 69th 70th 71st 72nd	R R R R R R	59 51 56 49 56 48	D D D D D D	37 43 39 46 39 47	- 2 1 1 1 1	Harding (R) Coolidge (R) Coolidge (R) Coolidge (R) Hoover (R) Hoover (R)
1933-1935 1935-1937 1937-1939 1939-1941 1941-1943 1943-1945	73rd 74th 75th 76th 77th 78th	D D D D D D	60 69 76 69 66 58	R R R R R R	35 25 16 23 28 37	1 2 4 4 2 1	F.Roosevelt (D) F.Roosevelt (D) F.Roosevelt (D) F.Roosevelt (D) F.Roosevelt (D) F.Roosevelt (D)
1945-1947 1947-1949 1949-1951 1951-1953 1953-1955 1955-1957	79th 80th 81st 82nd 83rd 84th	D R D D R D	56 51 54 49 48 48	R D R R D R	38 45 42 47 47 47	1 - - - 1 1	F.Roosevelt (D) Truman (D) Truman (D) Truman (D) Eisenhower (R) Eisenhower (R)
1957-1959 1959-1961 1961-1963 1963-1965 1965-1967 1967-1969	85th 86th 87th 88th 89th 90th	D D D D D D	49 65 65 67 68 64	R R R R R R	47 35 35 33 32 36	1 1 1 1 1 1	Eisenhower (R) Eisenhower (R) Kennedy (D) Kennedy (D) L.Johnson (D)L.Johnson (D)
1969-1971 1971-1973 1973-1975 1975-1977 1977-1979 1979-1981	91st 92nd 93rd 94th 95th 96th	D D D D D D	57 54 56 60 61 58	R R R R R R	43 44 42 37 38 41	- 2 2 3 1 1	Nixon (R) Nixon (R) Nixon(R) Ford (R) Carter (D) Carter (D)
1981-1983 1983-1985 1985-1987 1987-1989 1989-1991 1991-1993	97th 98th 99th 100th 101st 102nd	R R R D D D	53 55 53 55 54 56	D D D R R R	46 45 47 45 46 44	1 - - - - -	Reagan (R) Reagan (R) Reagan (R) Reagan (R) G.H.W. Bush (R) G.H.W. Bush (R)
1993-1995 1995-1997 1997-1999 1999-2001 2001-2003 2003-2005	103rd 104th 105th 106th 107th 108th	D R R R D R	57 52 55 55 50 51	R D D D R D	43 48 45 45 49 48	- - - - 1 1	Clinton (D) Clinton (D) Clinton (D) Clinton (D) G.W. Bush (R) G.W. Bush (R)
Party Abbreviations:    Ad - pro-administration (no parties)    C - coalition (no parties)    D - Democratic    DR - Democratic-Republican    F - Federalist    J - Jacksonian Democrat    NR - National Republican    Op - anti-administration (no parties)    R - Republican    U - Unionist    W - Whig

LINK

Having a majority was our goal, and a lot of people (I daresay most) thought that was good enough. Unfortunately, the Rats were underestimated.

Why is our side never underestimated?

More appropriately, why does our side always underestimate themselves?

We need a super majority to get judges. You know this, and I find your comment to be nothing but an attempt to get people to arguing and slamming Repulicans

No, I don't know it.

The Democrats don't have a genie in the bottle, they simply did something unprecedented, and kicked our Senators' tails between their legs. The Democrats get it. It's civil war war by other means, namely, the judiciary, and the Democrats will do what it takes to win. We won't, at least not yet.

Republicans would prefer to wring their hands, being careful not to break their nails, and stump for some pie in the sky, rino-veto-proof supermajority.

Meanwhile we expand the non-military size of government at a rate faster than we did under Clinton.

We always have excuses for not fighting. We accept the Democrats' definition of incrementalism... giving them half of what they want, half as fast as they want it, rather than taking ground from them.

What's going to happen if we get 58 Senate seats? Two more years of superduper fundraisers? No point in fighting, we can't get cloture. Is that it?

If we don't demand accountability from our own party, and if we follow your template, that's where we'll end up.

[arete]

And, in my eyes, anyone who helps to elect members of the Democrat party are aiding and abetting the enemy.

So I guess that means anyone who doesn't vote republican is an evil-doing enemy of the state. Wow, now there's a choice for conservatives to ponder.

Richard W.

[GOP_1900AD]

Haha... you went digging for that one.... thanks for bringing it along for the ride! We'll get to the infiltrators eventually.... '04, solidify the base.... '06, the great rightward surge.... '08 ?

[eastforker]

My 2 cents worth:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1003163/postshave at it y'all