Posted on 04/11/2006 3:33:35 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
There are a few exceptions like Chaffee. It is like expecting New York to replace Pataki with a conservative. But the point is those are exceptions. The great majority of Republicans in office come from conservative areas and they know it. At least they remember it come campaign season.
It is unfortunate to those who must live with the Chaffees and Patakis but again, they are the exceptions to the rule.
I liked the sort of things he would said, and thought it would be fun to have a President in the face of the Soviet Union saying them, but felt it wouldn't be 'responsible' to put such a confrontational man in the White House during the era of MAD.
I liked him because he was an actor and I'd enjoyed G.E. Theatre and Death Valley Days. I mean, he was really cute. But that wasn't a good enough reason to vote for him.
And I wasn't informed enough then to know he had once been a Democrat.
BTW, have you read Reagan's War?
I've sent it to a lot of soldiers.
Yeah, right. As though the national party doesn't get their way 98% of the time (e.g., Toomey vs. Specter). They throw their weight and money behind whoever they want, and the sheep oblige.
You don't have to be a Christian to be conservative and not all evolutionist are liberals.
Jim,
I have seen many debates on this subject and they usually get, well, too heated. This comes from both sides. I use to get in on these debates, but found the hatred too much for my liking. FR should be a place to voice our different opinions on various subjects, but we do not have to be hateful. This is one area the mods need too watch.
If GHWB had won in 1992, there still would have been a very ambitious man named Newt Gingrich in the House. Gingrich was a man on a mission, and the presence of GHWB wouldn't have stopped him one bit.
God is just making it clear to man that he is one sick puppy without God being directly involved in individuals and nations lives.
What an utterly disgusting sentiment.
Try this one instead:
"There is no hope for the satisfied man."
You don't understand the phrase. It means expending all your effort on a hopeless attempt to achieve "perfection" can mean failing to actually achieve anything "good," leaving you stuck with the reality of the "bad."
>what possible incentive would they have to nominate conservative candidates
The GOP does not 'nominate' candidates. - The voters do, and that is the point.
Try to replace RINOs with more worthy candidates, probably keep the RINOs in the cobalt blue states as they help us achieve a majority that lets us control the committees, rather than
kennedy kerry durbin pelosi schummer clinton etc etc.
A RINO is far more palatable than an enemy dim. I don't like it any more than you do, but it is the reality of politics today. Work within the Republican Party to effect change, not aid our enemies in destroying our only weapon!
LLS
Good post.
I'm not against enforcing the law and don't see how that would hurt anyone's chances. I'm also not opposed to any kind of meaningful reform they can get through the Senate. Just git'er done. But don't destroy the movement if you can't.
But, if it wasn't for those threads, some would not have anything to post here. Some post nowhere else and on no other topic.
In the end the people voted for him.
Thanks Jim for posting this, it needed to be said.
Thanks Jim for your statement and for FreeRepublic.
Am proud to have always voted Republican since the mid '60s
starting with Reagan for Gov. having worked in his headquarters here in San Diego.
Am a Conservative and why I would never vote third party,
giving the liberals a vote.
John Anderson was a liberal Republican (called RINO) who ran on the Republican ticket in the 1980 presidential campaign. He dropped out in the spring to become an independent candidate and barely got 7% of the vote in November, and hardly seen as a "spoiler" of that election, because people were fed up with Carter, and Reagan was seen as likeable by a sizeable majority of Democrats and Republicans.
In 1984, he supported Mondale.
He's nothing more than a Jim Jeffords.
People wanted change because they were unsatified and the democrats in congress lost because of it.
Perot set a course for change, many people followed it.
Republicans nationalizing the elections means what?
They ran for congress on national issues.
Let's be honest that makes no common sense at all, we elect congressmen to deal with National issues.
This brilliant republican strategery of running on national issues is not a strategy at all, it's what they should have been doing anyway.
Anything else is political suicide.
Calling Creationism a "Cancer" is also denigration, for the record.
Why not try to educate point by point...?
Cheers!
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.