Posted on 01/23/2006 5:51:10 AM PST by mr_hammer
Anyone who thinks that sending back his RNC card and a snotty reply to a directmail company hired to generate fundraising, is too stupid to be a Republican. If no money is in the reply envelope...it's discarded. No one reads his stupid rant.
Put the letter in a drawer and forget about it.
I saw that too. It's a perennial argument. "Move to the right." "NO! Move to the center." "We don't need your votes anyway." Etc. And of course, the ever popular, "I get to wear the [conservative|base] label, not you and your ilk."
I'm looking forward to new epithets. ;-)
I respectfully disagree with you. If the dissatisfied Republican decides to vote for a 3rd party INSTEAD of the vote they would have given Bush - then yes, that vote was taken away from Bush. It's got nothing to do with a "pool of votes committed to Bush". If a Bush voter decides to vote for someone else, then Bush has lost that vote. Seems logical to me.
I mean I have had it up to here with their backstabbing liberal policies.
The country is being overrun with illegals and the Republicans are not only not doing the right thing they are aiding the illegals. Don't believe it, I will show you a bunch any time you want to see them.
Bush has banned more guns by the pen, through his suboridinates and let the BATFE go back to their illegal habits.
Fed up with them? Getting to hate them is more like it.
GREAT POST!
A couple of points. First, you are correct that a Republican Congress and executive did not curb spending. It has been shown that whenever the same party controlled both houses, the same thing happened. Spending is only curbed when party competition exists. Second, how do you change the election cycle to prevent your concern for winning the next election?
History also reflects that the parties change over time, that new parties replace old. It used to not to be the Republicans and Democrats, and each party is radically different than it was when they were first created.
True, but the last party to hold any significant office was the Whig which collapsed in 1856. The Republican Party began with very liberal roots. Hopefully that is not what you want to return to. When it went totally conservative in 1964 with the help of the Dixiecrats, it lost miserably.
Personally there are a lot of things that need fixing like the borders and Agriculture spending for example. But the Republicans are doing some good things. Tax cuts, refusal to go along with Kyoto, the war on terror, the Patriot Act for examples. The economy is good, my security is being protected, my grandchildren have opportunities I never dreamed of. I keep the problems in perspective when I look at the rest of the world.
Boo f'in Hoo.
Lord have mercy on the whiners. I cannot.
I'm not sure how the agreement to accept fines is unconstitutional if Congress and the executive agree to do so.
That's a great letter. I agree that President Bush and many republican congressmen are too liberal. If more Republicans wrote letters like yours, the RNC might try to persuade republican politicians to become more conservative.
In 2004, I thought that Bush was too liberal, so I voted for the Constitution Party candidate, Michael Peroutka. If I thought that the vote would be close in my state, Illinois, I would have voted for Bush. I didn't want to help split the conservative vote and help Kerry win IL. In Oct. '04, I predicted that Kerry would get 57% of the vote in IL, so I voted for the candidate with whom I agreed the most. Kerry got 57% of the vote in IL.
I think you made my point. No agreement can supercede the Constitution, and we have a judiciary, executive and legislative that is still in control. If a provision is believed to be unconstitutional, then file a suit, as the lumber company did.
Despite the ra ra republicrat's ragging on you, you done good! I for one, am glad to see more of us standing up to the liars and the Big Govt "new conservatives" that now hold the power. Their day's are numbered. Blackbird.
bttt
Ok, here is the crux of our disagreement.
From your point of view there are a limited number of types of voters.
1. republicans
2. democrats
3. Independent / other
You automatically assume that a republican, even if dissatisfied with his or her choice of candidate, should vote for the republican candidate (a bush voter), and therefore if the voter casts a ballot for anyone else, that vote is considered "lost" and helps the opponent win.
This argument works equally well for the democrats.
Unfortunately, both are wrong.
I don't think we're going to agree on this.
However, how would you categorize a voter who changed their affiliation from "republican" to "independent"?
Does this change automatically "help" all democrats in all races in which that voter would vote?
Just wondering...............
AMEN.
Maybe someone has a copy of the last 4 or 5 cycles of Republican Platforms so that can make an honest appraisal of what we've been paying for versus what we've gotten.
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.