The country is tilting Republican

Editor and Publisher ^

[slowhand520]

Hopefully this trend will last

By E&P Staff

Published: December 14, 2004 5:00 PM ET

NEW YORK Even as a new Gallup poll shows that the public values “values” less than November exit polls suggested, another survey from the same outfit released today showed a historic surge in Republican party affiliation.

In Gallup's latest poll this month, those identifying themselves as Republicans jumped to 37% of the public, with Democrats now clearly trailing with 32%.

Democrats have long held more party members than Republicans. During the Clinton years, the bulge was about 5% to 6%. As recently as late-October of this year the Democratic edge was 37% to 34%.

Gallup noted today: “Post-election shifts in partisanship after presidential elections or midterm congressional elections are not routine, but are also not uncommon.”

Another Gallup poll also released today showed that, contrary to many press reports, “values” ranked well behind the war in Iraq, terrorism and the economy as a prime concern of Americans.

If this was posted already sorry.

[Dane]

I am a Card Carrying Republican! Can't even stand to look at Pelosi!!

Yeah right, since there is no such thing as a card carrying Republican.

But you go ahead and keep posting from the hillary headquarters basement(pushing miniscule political parties like a heroin dealer).

If, by chance, you see the Queen bee of the socialist hive(hillary) maybe you could remind her that it isn't 1992, and that she doen't have total control of the media anymore.

[rdb3]

My suggestion(s)? Turn up the heat on our elected representatives and Senators (if they happen to be Republican, which mine are and I'm in a border state).

But I won't reinvent the wheel.

[26lemoncharlie]

Yeah right, since there is no such thing as a card carrying Republican

If you register to vote, you get a card stating the you are a registered voter, and to what party you have registered. I don't know where your from but that is what I have in my wallet.

As far as being a left winger, sorry, but I am an American. I believe in the Constitution and I have spent over twenty years in the US NAVY. I am a Vietnam Combat Vet, From Haiphong Harbour to the Saigon river, so please ave the cheap shots.

[american spirit]

I'd have to disagree.....seeing the Republicans abysmal record on illegal immigration, spending billions of taxpayer $ on illegals thus subsidzing businesses that hire them, continued high trade and budget deficits, jobs lost through outsourcing, the coming FTAA, ill conceived implementation of Homeland Security where we see gray haired old folks being shook down at airports while the borders are left open for any # of assorted drug dealers, murderers, rapists, possible terrorists, to enter, the Iraq debacle, etc......has proven to me without a doubt that these "alleged" party leaders are running one of the biggest con jobs in history......is that where the term 'neo-con' comes from?

[Capriole]

People want to be on the winning team. I've noticed a whole lot more Republican or Bush/Cheney bumper stickers appeared after the election than were visible before it.

[Dane]

As far as being a left winger, sorry, but I am an American. I believe in the Constitution and I have spent over twenty years in the US NAVY. I am a Vietnam Combat Vet, From Haiphong Harbour to the Saigon river, so please ave the cheap shots

And bill clinton never inhaled, correct.

Sorry Charlie, but, IMO, your stridency of promoting so-called 3rd parties, says one thing to me, strategy of 92.

And you know what Perot's 60 million dollars got us, 8 years of the clintons.

Hey I don't really care if you want a democrat in the White House, but be honest about it and don't use clinonian covert actions(i.e promoting 3rd parties), ok.

[26lemoncharlie]

I undrstand about the third party fiasco you refer to, what I am trying to get across is how to get the attention of these Senators and Representatives. You should know as well as I that you can change your registration aas many times as you like. Just go to the Post Office and get some registration Cards.

Besides, when you go to the polls to vote, you can be registered a Democrat and Vote Republican as we just seen in theis election by the number of Democratic voters that voted for Bush. I was suggesting a method to get the attention of the Law makers and that is a very potent method of doing it!

[26lemoncharlie]

In Addition look at some of the links that have been posted just today:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1301355/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1301381/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1301317/posts

Do you agree a little shaking of the tree might do some good?

[american spirit]

Don't think anything Perot did inflicted more damage than Bush Sr. caused himself with a piss-poor campaign strategy and his famous no new taxes flip flop......costing him credibility and which opened the door for alternate candidates.

[Dane]

I undrstand about the third party fiasco you refer to, what I am trying to get across is how to get the attention of these Senators and Representatives..

Then why do you promote that same third party fiasco, if you "understand' it.

I'm done with the niceties, you sir are a troll. JMO, a hillary troll, with your obvious old and tired playbook from 92(i.e promoting 3rd parties).

I sincerely hope you all keep playing that playbook since it has brought you so much success(i.e your surrogates of buchanan, browne, badnarik, and peroutka) still couldn't deliver the White House to your, IMO, true WH candidates, gore and kerry.

[Zhangliqun]

What did he change other than slavery?

[26lemoncharlie]

Sorry Dane, Your Wrong! No Troll Here!

[Jeff Blogworthy]

"I don't think you know what federalism means. It is the version of limited government envisioned by the founders of the constitution. The problem isn't that we are tilting toward federalism, but away from it."

This is overly simplistic and untrue. Adherents of federalism, as the name suggests, believed that more power should be centrally concentrated in the federal government as opposed to local communities (States) being in largely charge of their own affairs. They argued for a broad interpretation of the Constitution, especially the general welfare clause and they are the forbears of today's liberals. Alexander Hamilton was a Federalist.

Anti-federalists, on the other hand, argued for a narrow (conservative) interpretation of the Constitution and limited federal power. Anti-federalists included Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson.

In 1792, James Madison argued against this broad, unconstitutional interpretation of the General Welfare clause, saying:

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may seek the provision of the poor… (all of which) would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.”

What could be more prescient than that? I was careful in my wording.

[Southack]

"I'd have to disagree.....seeing the Republicans abysmal record on illegal immigration, spending billions of taxpayer $ on illegals thus subsidzing businesses that hire them, continued high trade and budget deficits, jobs lost through outsourcing, the coming FTAA..."

You disagree?! About what?! Pushing the FTAA is *far* from socialism. You seem confused about that whole "free trade" thing. Moreover, you complain first about illegals and then on spending taxpayer money on enforcement. You are one confused kid.

Ditto for "outsourcing." Outsourcing may be a lot of bad things, but "socialism" it is not.

Surely with a post that messed up you meant to respond to someone else on some other topic, because your above words make no sense in regards to my statement that moving from state owned banks and grain mills in the 1920's to today's free trade marks a shift *away* from socialism.

[NeoCaveman]

. . . in Clinton's pants.
That wasn't a real bulge. It was a sock.

And Sandy Berger's stolen documents were in that sock

[PGalt]

Good news. 62 million voters is a good foundation to build on. Lots of work to be done.

[k2blader]

Because, as excruciatingly awful as that sounds, it might be just what it takes to wake up the sheeple and bring about the revival/revolution that we so sorely need in this nation.

I'm sure I'll never be ready for Hillary as Prez. That said, someone on another thread commented that the cyclical nature of politics/public opinion may mean a shift in power back to the Dems eventually. I think a Republican victory in 2008 will depend upon how the party responds to the concerns of Christian conservatives during the next 4 years.

[k2blader]

Sometimes it surprises me how much I agree with some FReepers on certain issues but then vehemently disagree with them on others.

If you want to pin me down on a "side", you can put me down as being on the side of strongly pro-Life, Christian, anti-socialism conservatism. Those are the first adjectives that come to mind, anyway.

Re. illegal immigration, I'll never think it's right to reward criminals who break the law when entering our country or reward employers who hire said criminals.

And yeah, Hillary's words are more than likely empty blatherings. But for her to say "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants," is politically savvy. She's voicing the belief of most Americans, even if she doesn't believe it herself.

[Beemnseven]

OK, I've read about the Compromise of 1850. And yes, Lincoln wasn't president then. That he had no part in the Compromise does not prove he was a staunch defender of States Rights.

Now, perhaps you can go back to your history books and look for a particular section commonly referred to as "THE CIVIL WAR".

[rdb3]

OK, I've read about the Compromise of 1850. And yes, Lincoln wasn't president then. That he had no part in the Compromise does not prove he was a staunch defender of States Rights.

Then you have no understanding.

The Compromise of 1850 was an egregious violation of States Rights.