Posted on 12/06/2005 5:19:59 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
But with the Republican Party's hold on the Senate looking tenuous, the party of Wall Street and the religious right is suddenly chummy with its most prominent environmentalist. With a tough race looming, and a solid conservative challenging Chafee in the primary, Republican elites are sending checks to Rhode Island -- to help Chafee.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Our meddling into the affairs of Middle Eastern countires should have been halted looooooooooong before President Reagan was elected. I'd go as far back as Woodrow Wilson(or @ least FDR).
Sir, I'm afraid you've disarmed me. Touche.
Wait a minute. I think my surrender was premature.
We've 'meddled' (meaning, huge $$$ foreign aid packages) in the affairs of lots of countries, but none have attacked us like this.
We weren't meddled with Japan when they attacked us. We were pretty isolationist at the time.
Besides, you can't turn it around and say, it's your fault because these religious nuts are attacking you?
Such authorization in the Constitution doesn't exist. We, as individuals, can send as much of our own $ overseas if we so desire, & for whatever purpose we want....but the feds haven't been granted that power.
I'm so sick of having the word "isolationist" being considered a dirty word. Let's put it on an INDIVIDUAL level: if your neighbors down the block are arguing, do YOU have the right to bust down their doors to get them to stop? If you didn't do such a thing, would it be right if the neighborhood called you an "isolationist" simply because you minded your own business & didn't interfere in the lives of others?
You need to remember that FDR was looking for an excuse to help his buddy "Uncle Joe" Stalin (that was HIS nickname for that evil dictator, not nime!) as well as Churchill...& since Japan & Germany had treaties that they would help one another if one nation was attacked, FDR provoked Japan into attacking us first. If FDR had followed the Founder's view re: foreign policy, Pearl Harbor would never have occured, & we wouldn't have been involved in WW2 (isn't it strange that we end up discussing this on the 64th anniversary of our being "attacked"?)
I generally agree with you. I have no problem with Snowe, Collins etc.
Chafee is another story. He is right on NO substantive issue. NONE. If he were right on even one major issue, I'd probably support him.
He's not.
He makes Arlen Specter look like Jesse Helms. I'm not even joking. Look at his voting record and pubic statements.
His record is almost as bad as Jumpin Jims was.
That's not accurate.
WRONG!
In 2000, when Santorum still ran as an unadulterated conservative, he won while Bush lost by 200,000 votes.
My flaming liberal niece voted for Gore and Santorum.
And party politics makes whores of them all.
Important for who?
What has this Republican majority get us?
They fought harder for what was right when we were in the minority. Now that they are the majority, they behave just like the Dems.
D'uh!
Santorum has a job with the GOP. He is the third ranking member of leadership. He has campaigned for every Pubbie that the party wants him to campaign for such as Arlen and Christi Todd Whitman amongst others.
It's his job and his job means more to him than his former principles.
Now, a*****e, quit lying. I've made my case for why I am opposed to Santorum and it doesn't include his social agenda except where he wants to spend my money to make it happen and enforce it at gunpoint. Economically, he is not a conservative. He is a socialistic redistributionist who thinks that he can dictate to us how we should live our lives and how our money should be spent.
And if my posts bother you, don't read them and don't respond to them. ( o )
Two words:
Bush
Santorum
Without their help, Toomey would have won the primary and the general elections and Jon Kyl would have been the Judiciary Committee Chairman.
And people like Antoninus who only vote party, not principle.
Bull!
Santorum made his career on espousing principle and when he was in a position to do something about those principles, he put Party first.
Toomey has fallen into the same game. Maybe he thinks that he can resist the siren's call if he does return to office, but whether he gets the support that he did the last time is questionable.
Maybe you have no principle, but a lot of us do. We don't abandon them and we don't take kindly to others who sell them out.
Try closing your pie hole and looking at the evidence that we have posted countless times. His endorsement of Specter just opened our eyes. Looking at his RECENT record of support for one huge spending program after another and his votes that mirror those of Kennedy, Schumer, and Clinton. These votes tell the story but you have to be capable of looking at it. I guess that your world would collapse around you if you admitted the truth.
Santorum is an opportunist who will use any issue to keep his job and spineless people like you are afraid to assess him honestly, let alone call him on it.
I have been saying that we need to replace him in the primary or else we will lose the seat. I've been saying it for over a year and a half. I don't want a Democrat in there, but Ricky's votes and refusal to step aside will make it a reality.
--& we wouldn't have been involved in WW2 (isn't it strange that we end up discussing this on the 64th anniversary of our being "attacked"?)--
A day...that will live in infamy...
...9-11-1.
(My humble apologies to Mr. Roosevelt for borrowing his words.)
It is disingenuous to suggest that just because we want Ricky to lose, we want a Demon-crat to take the seat. One does not logically follow from the other. What we really want is a honest conservative to challenge Ricky in the primary.
The Toomey race demonstrated, clearly, that Ricky is not to be trusted...that he's a slimy pol who will do anything to advance himself. Because so many starry-eyed Republicans (SERs) blindly give Ricky a pass, I've made the tactical decision to vote for Casey to unseat the "R" no one is watching. The SERs don't bother to compare his words and deeds. He has buffaloed 99% of SERs. GAME OVER.
He's got to go because he's the enemy within and while nobody is watching, he's promoting Socialistic solutions and RINO's like Specter. Have you read his bills at http://thomas.loc.gov? That's the true measure of the man....not his proferred protestations at fundraisers or the crap written in his book. ENOUGH.
Granted, we need to maintain the majority...but a 51-49 majority can be MORE effective than a 55-45 majority. Rick Santorum's support of Snarlen Arlen over uber-conservative Pat Toomey made no sense whatsoever from a 'get things done' standpoint. It only made sense from the 'promote Ricky at all costs' standpoint. Ricky is going down to defeat in November 2006. The party would be well advised to replace him in the primary, because principled conservatives are still LIVID, and would rather vote for a Dem than vote for Ricky.
Toomey hailed from a Democratic District. He would have won handily.
A tranzi? I like that.......
See http://www.townhall.com/opinion/column/RickSantorum/2005/11/17/175882.html
Where lil Ricky Santorum, one of our most "CONSERVATIVE" senators said this: "... We need to embrace the challenge to dedicate a larger percentage of our GDP to foreign aid, while encouraging more international trade with developing countries. History will judge us not by what we say but what we do.
Yes, this agenda will require a role for government that some conservatives find disquieting. But that is a discomfort worth confronting..."
God help us all. He's a SOCIALIST....and very few of us have fiured it out. Most are too busy reflexively clapping and cheering for whatever idiocy he proposes. It's disgusting.
There are very few Americans left in government.
This country especially a state like PA used to split tickets more. In the last five years voters have tended to choose one side or another. 2000 was a totally different political landscape. I'll stick with what I said I can't imagine that their were that many people who voted for Kerry in Pa who would have voted for Toomey.
Bush ran ahead of the gop senate candidates. In Florida Bush ran ahead of Martinez. Bush was the incumbent and still lost in Pa by 3 percent. Toomey would have probably ran behind Bush in PA. Also remember that Santorum was the incumbent in 2000 which helped him in that political enviornment.
PA has become a very socially rino state. The philly suburbs have trended far left. Throw in the two big cities and PA is a tough state for a conservative republican. Only reason Bush was even close in PA was because of the security moms. Toomey wouldn't have had that going for him. I was for Toomey just to get Specter out of the Judiciary Chairmanship even though I knew Toomey couldn't win in a state like PA.
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.