Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Current Poll - 13% of members will turn it over to the rats????

Posted on 05/06/2006 9:51:50 AM PDT by Sonora

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 921-925 next last
To: Sonora

Well said, and I'm very sorry for the loss of your son. It only emphasizes why we can't let the Rats win.


601 posted on 05/06/2006 3:41:34 PM PDT by Dammit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

To: georgia2006

Check this out

senator jim talent: http://www.politics1.com/mo.htm

Senator Rick Santorum: http://www.politics1.com/pa.htm


602 posted on 05/06/2006 3:46:36 PM PDT by MaineVoter2002 (http://jednet207.tripod.com/PoliticalLinks.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 478 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369
Because letting people like Spectre win ends up being worse than a democrat winning.

As much as I can't stand Specter .. we did get Roberts and Alito on the USSC

A democrat would have blocked them both

603 posted on 05/06/2006 4:00:12 PM PDT by Mo1 (DEMOCRATS: A CULTURE OF TREASON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 566 | View Replies]

To: Sonora
I can't vote in the thing because both are the right answer. A RINO or a Rockefeller Republican is not a Conservative so if a DEM candidate is more conservative the GOP/RNC can pound sand as I will vote for the conservative be it GOP, DEM, or Independent. I will not however vote for a RINO. I will leave my vote on that office blank before I will vote for a RINO. I would rather see a DEM win one term with a good chance to have a conservative run the next time than a RINO win another term though. RINO's simply are not worth electing because of the damage they do.

I'll take a Conservative Minority that's willing to fight over a majority gained by RINO's who won't fight on key issues for conservative causes any day. Elect Conservative candidates by all means. If people would stop voting for RINO's in the primaries because Party Chairman says they are electable maybe more Conservatives would actually get elected. The main thing standing in the way of Conservatives in races is the RNC and the White House. Both have cost the GOP quite a few of them any chance by skewing or manipulating the primary elections process.

604 posted on 05/06/2006 4:03:25 PM PDT by cva66snipe (If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polybius; Petronski

Don't leave the Republican Party.

CHANGE IT!

Preach!

Then again, I won't beg anyone who wants to bolt to stay.

605 posted on 05/06/2006 4:10:32 PM PDT by rdb3 (It helps now that I'm no longer young enough to know everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

I'm in, and will drag folks to the polls.


606 posted on 05/06/2006 4:11:32 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk (Any legal immigrant who wants to join me as an American, is welcome.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: pbrown

Pat Buchanan has run for President at least once...he has a sister named Bay....and Pat worked for President Nixon.

He works as an analyst for MSNBC...his sister Bay, works for CNN as an analyst.

They are both very protectionist...which would be okay, if is just meant closing the borders, but Pat is also anti-Israel, and is NOT for the war in Iraq, and doesn't much care for Bush's idea of democratizing the middle east...

He writes columns that are posted here on FR...you should read some of them, though, and make up your own mind about whether you "like" him or not.

I personally do not like him...

Oh, and, I think he is talking about running for POTUS in 2008....probably using the closed border theme as his number 1 selling point.


607 posted on 05/06/2006 4:26:13 PM PDT by Txsleuth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 594 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo

I totally agree that we do have the right to be angry...

I am angry with President Bush over a few things...but, to throw some cliches out..

I neither want to "cut off my nose, to spite my face", nor do I want to "throw the baby out with the bath water"...

IOW...I think we HAVE to work within the party, otherwise we WILL lose...and I think anyone that espouses the attitude of losing in 2006 will "wake up" the GOP is being not only foolish, but it puts our nation at great danger.


608 posted on 05/06/2006 4:29:54 PM PDT by Txsleuth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 599 | View Replies]

To: moehoward

As of 6:15 pm CDST, it is only 15.5% of members. That 19.9% is being skewed by 25% of non-members, ie: DUers voting to keep the arguments going.

Doesn't matter. 165 FReepers is totally meaningless against the entire country, especially since they are spread out over all the states and territories and some are ex-pats.

I really think the unappeasables love FR because it is one of the few places they can get into an argument with Republicans and feel virtuous.

I can never understand the left wanting us to lose the WOT, as though they themselves would suffer no consequences. In the same vein, the true conservatives seem convinced that somehow a donk administration would not affect them. Anyone willing to teach the GOP a lesson must be convinced that they will not pay more taxes, not be subject to mandatory diversity mentoring, not be subject to whatever degree of Islam manages to become popular among the progressives (I know they adore Sufism), not be subject to diversity hiring,
will absolutely be allowed to keep even one long gun for home defense, and somehow will be able to then finally live exactly as any real conservative would wish.

Most of us don't get any of that and that is why you can sit out, vote for the one-percent party or whatever. It doesn't matter.


609 posted on 05/06/2006 4:31:06 PM PDT by reformedliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: rdb3

Is that a self-portrait??

Very cool...


610 posted on 05/06/2006 4:31:26 PM PDT by Txsleuth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: Dammit
I don't think there is really any cause for despair. FR has always been a magnet for the disaffected third-party types. They are represented here in a percentage FAR outnumbering their real numbers in the general population.

Uh Excuse me but you can thank the third party voters for the 80's-90's GOP takeover. There are plenty of voters who will vote conservative even within the Democratic Party. So who had the brains to unite this force and bring about the Conservative takeover? Three names. Howard Phillips {Founder of the Constitution Party}, Paul Weyrich of Free Congress Foundation, and a Dem I'll let you guess the name LOL. They persons were the driving force behind the most successful Conservative Grass Roots movement in modern U.S. history.

GOP leadership has ignored the conservative base not just in the GOP but also the Democratic and Third Parties which is what Conservative landslide wins are made of. The GOP did not come to power on Liberalism it won on Conservatism by uniting voters from all three places. Dem's don't want GOP liberals they'll vote for their own. If the GOP doesn't give Dem Conservatives a conservative candidate they vote straight ticket. Why should they vote for the other party's liberal?

611 posted on 05/06/2006 4:34:26 PM PDT by cva66snipe (If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
The poll is worded just like it came out of D.U.. I can't believe anyone would participate in a poll worded as slanted and unreal as one that could be found in the Washington Times.

I agree. I wasn't going to post over here anymore, but I have to say I think that was the most biased poll I've ever seen.

The Repubs who we elected and put into office have abandoned us - and now they ignore us. I am disgusted with them (most, not all.) Republican no longer means conservative.

The time is right for a Third Party to take over.

612 posted on 05/06/2006 4:35:23 PM PDT by Arizona (If the President doesn't believe fences work, why does he have one around the White House?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: Arizona
The time is right for a Third Party to take over.


613 posted on 05/06/2006 4:38:57 PM PDT by BunnySlippers (We want our day: A day without hearing SPANISH ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers

You can puke on my statement, but it's true. The Repubs (most, not all) are a bunch of wimps. They have the power - we GAVE them the power - and they don't use it!!! They allow the Dems to walk all over them. There is well over 2 years before the next presidential election, plenty of time for a Third Party to do the will of the US citizens.


614 posted on 05/06/2006 4:44:10 PM PDT by Arizona (If the President doesn't believe fences work, why does he have one around the White House?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers

I change my voter registration from Republican to none just this week. I'm an eternal optimist but I think we have lost the country.


615 posted on 05/06/2006 4:45:21 PM PDT by warthog1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers

How do you think the GOP got to be a party to start with :>} It was a third party.


616 posted on 05/06/2006 4:50:40 PM PDT by cva66snipe (If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

The Republican takeover was the result of, duh, people voting Republican.


617 posted on 05/06/2006 4:51:19 PM PDT by Dammit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth
we HAVE to work within the party, otherwise we WILL lose...and I think anyone that espouses the attitude of losing in 2006 will "wake up" the GOP is being not only foolish, but it puts our nation at great danger.

Is the Republican party a conservative party, with conservative values, or not?

Has it moved left, or not?

Did they win elections by campaigning on conservative values, or not?

Do some imperil their own re-election by steadfastly ignoring these conservative values, their conservative base, their maintaining the shift left-of-center? I think they do. I think they know this. But, undaunted, many will continue their steadfast march away from why they were even elected. How does one work with a party which seems bent on walking off a cliff? Working with certain individuals within the party may be possible. I don't foresee that with the party itself. (Denial is where they're at right now.)

618 posted on 05/06/2006 5:04:05 PM PDT by nicmarlo (Bush is the Best President Ever. Rah. Rah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]

To: Dammit
The Republican takeover was the result of, duh, people voting Republican.

No go back and look again. The candidates were running Conservative campaigns. Dems were going over to the GOP to run Conservative. That is why they voted GOP not because they were Republicans. If the DEMs wanted Liberals why vote for the GOP's Liberals? It was because up till 1996 the GOP ran a Conservative Platform. Why did Bob Dole loose? Because he invited every RINO who is a RINO to be Key Note Speakers at the 1996 GOP Convention. In two short years the GOP surrendered it's platform to run along the side of DEMs. Look what happened. They lost the senate majority once because of it and unless they wise up they will loose both houses and the White House by 2008.

Howard Phillips, Paul Weyrich, Jerry Falwell, and Ed McAteer helped put together the GOP Conservative takeover movement. It was the movement that helped Reagan and the GOP all the way to both houses of Congress in 1995. The Rockefeller GOP sadly has squandered all gains made during that time away. Right now the GOP is two very different parties Conservative and Liberal and I don't see any way for the two factions ever to work together again.

619 posted on 05/06/2006 5:06:45 PM PDT by cva66snipe (If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 617 | View Replies]

To: al_again
Another way to look at is to compare it to sports teams. Sometimes you need to cut under-performing veterans in order to bring in younger players. The result will surely be a losing season or two but the objective is to have a very competitive team in two to three years.

Your sports analogy is idiotic. In sports, if you lose, you get the better draft picks. Also with the salary cap, a winning team often can not keep its best players.

Politics is just the opposite. The party that wins gets the first draft picks because in politics, the party that wins gets to make the rules. Also, in politics, there is a reverse salary cap. If you win, people give you money.

Bottom line, in sports the game is rigged to have competitive play. In politics, the winners rig the game so there will never be fair play.

620 posted on 05/06/2006 5:07:53 PM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 921-925 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson