Is Free Republic too "Republican?"

Jim Robinson

[TLBSHOW]

I vote no.

....

I had a feeling you would which is great...

,,,,,,,
However, for those who claim that we must "hold the Republicans feet to the fire", I say you are doing more harm than good when you burn their feet rending them, leaving them unable to walk. The dishonesty and deception of your claims of good intentions are exposed as we see the real damage you are doing.

.......

Oh come on, but please point out the dishonesty and deception. I don't need that with so many facts around.

Anyways do you think Rush should just keep his mouth shut too and not hold the Republicans feet to the fire when they cram socialist lite down our throats?



;;;;;
(yes, I spelled rending correctly. Look it up.)
......

I won't go into a spelling contest that is a fact!

[Consort]

Fair enough, but if you decide to vote Democrat, let us know so that we can "thank" you.

[Feiny]

It is actually larger than 8%.

According to the Heritage Foundation, the years 2000 to 2003 marked the biggest spending spree in the history of the United States, except for WWII. Total spending has gone up nearly 14 percent in Bush's first three years, and discretionary spending has gone up nearly 20 percent.

Bush spent a pile not only on guns, but on butter. Non-defense spending has gone up by almost the same amount as defense spending, and defense spending constitutes barely a fifth of the total increase in spending from 2000 to 2003.

[Feiny]

It is actually larger than 8%.

According to the Heritage Foundation, the years 2000 to 2003 marked the biggest spending spree in the history of the United States, except for WWII. Total spending has gone up nearly 14 percent in Bush's first three years, and discretionary spending has gone up nearly 20 percent.

Bush spent a pile not only on guns, but on butter. Non-defense spending has gone up by almost the same amount as defense spending, and defense spending constitutes barely a fifth of the total increase in spending from 2000 to 2003.

[Bob J]

The economy wasn't sinking in the quarters before the election...

Didn't matter. The press spikes that news so for all practical political purposes, it didn't exist.

The flatness of the economy prior to that was in part due to the first Gulf War, but also in part to Bush's signing of a tax increase in violation of his "read my lips" promise.

Agreed.

The Perot rebellion got it's jumpstart following the primary run of Buchanan, which demonstrated the erosion of Bush's support from 1988. Perot tapped an undercurrent of frustration that was there before and is still here now. Dems have it too...can you say "Naderitis"?

If a politician pursues strategies that lose voters from one election to the next, then that politician has only the mirror to blame. Not unless he picks up more new ones than he loses. Politicians are always looking to solidify their base while picking up swing voters from the other guy. If they lose a few from the fringe, they don't care.

I have a question. What exactly is the definition of a politician "taking my vote for granted" (tmvg)? Does that mean of they don't vote or govern exactly as I would if I were in their place, they are TMVG? Where's the line? 50%? 75%?

[Churchill Gomez]

Please don't contradict me or dispute my word, peewee.

Thank you!

[ClancyJ]

Flames? No. Just a difference of opinion.

You pick a stand and stick with it no matter what changes, who is running, what needs are found, what opportunities present themselves.

Me? I declare the freedom to change my mind as I grow, as I see needs, as I judge the runners, as I notice opportunities. I am not stuck in one mindset.

Corruption? Lies? Fraud? No. Not me. Those are options I do not allow in my leaders.

Yet, I realize that we will never get back to the founding fathers starting place. Life does not go backward. We cannot return to our high school days and demand that the whole world return to those days and we cannot control the thoughts and views of all Americans and forbid them to change their minds, to forego any improvements, any revisions to our government they feel is necessary.

Time does not stand still. Government - like life - evolves. It does not go back to an earlier time and require that there be no change in the future.

You work for the change in the direction you want - but you and each of us are the voice of one view - not the elite dictator that tells everyone else what they can and cannot believe, work toward and change.

No need to go into my personal wishes for our country - but Republican, conservative or whatever - I still have the right to agree or disagree with the government and work to change its direction - as does each and every American no matter how I feel about it.

[arasina]

My current goal is to defeat liberalism by defeating the Democrat Party. If that labels me a Republican, then so be it.

I am with you on this! I'm a lifelong registered Republican who has voted for the occasional Democrat or Alien (Perot...I got suckered). I'm conservative on most issues but an emotional softy on some others.

Don't change FreeRepublic one iota! I'm suspicious of any who would attemptto convince you it's "too Republican." We have good debate amongst the varying degrees of Republicanism and/or Conservativism and it's sometimes like a nice punching bag that allows us to get out all the frustration at the anti-Republicanismists. (well? isn't that what they are?)

[Constitution Day]

Is Free Republic too "Republican?"

What a question!
I thought it was too "Laci Peterson"! (o:

BUMP for later...

[Ms. AntiFeminazi]

You posted your reply to my post 394, yet your comments show no evidence of having read post 394. hm.

[headsonpikes]

"Please don't contradict me or dispute my word, peewee."

LOL!

If you don't grasp the meaning of words such as 'denote' then you really should avoid employing them.

It is egregiously infelicitous to my ear.

[JohnnyZ]

JimRob -

Seems to me it's fine as it is. There are a lot of Republicans who need to be kept on the straight and narrow, and FR being a nonaligned conservative voice can help and avoid charges of being "disloyal" or anything for criticizing liberal GOP-backed policies/politicians.

Although if you were thinking of putting something on the front page dissing the Libertarian Party, that would be great . . .

[Night Hides Not]

Bush has grown the size of government by 8%......that makes me very angry.

Good point, and I'm not real happy about it. However, there may be a method to Dubya's madness. Again, I'm going to sound like a Bushie. OK, I ADMIT IT! I AM A BUSHIE!!!

Whew! Glad to come out of the closet... ;^).

Ok, where was I? Thinking about Dubya's strategery. I liken this growth in government to chumming the waters. Even before 9/11, it looked like he was giving the Democrats what they wanted in exchange for the tax cuts, like the Education bill. What he was really doing was removing a Democrat issue from the debates to come.

Now, he's talking about prescription drugs for Medicare. I think at the very least this program should be means tested. OTOH, I've got clients who are paying $20,000 or more into Medicare each year, because of their income levels, and I think they should get some benefit of that 'investment' when they reach 65.

What is not mentioned in the reportage, is that Dubya wants tort reform in conjunction with the prescription drug benefit. So, if I read this right, seniors will get their drugs for approximately $40B/year, but there should be some future benefits to come from tort reform. It took a good 10-15 years for our economy to reap the benefits of the Reagan economic plan, and I believe there is a parallel here.

And what are the Democrats griping about now that their pet issues have been 'solved'? WMD, or lack thereof, in Iraq, and filibustering an Hispanic judicial nomination who is too conservative for their tastes. Meantime, in two weeks, tax rate reductions not scheduled for three or more years will be appearing on our payroll checks.

So, government spending has increased by 8% in the short term, with a bunch of that extra money going to kick the Taliban and Saddam out of power. I'm going to trust Dubya's judgment and strategery, because I've learned:

THE LAST MAN IN THE WORLD I WOULD WANT TO PLAY POKER AGAINST IS GEORGE W. BUSH!

Thankfully, the Democrats have not learned this lesson.

[justshe]

"...and just maybe Ross Perot did us all a favor. Willy the worst, woke up a significant portion of the sleepy sheep."

---

Wita----what you say is probably true, but NOTHING comes close to justifying the effect of the Clinton judicial appointments. That is one cesspool we will be smelling for decades.

Jim----your call. I have no opinion either way. Your goals re: the Republicans are right on the money however. NO changes can be realized if we don't hold the reins of power.

[ksen]

No...

[Amelia]

We need to draw them in and show them the benefits. Calling them "sheeple", telling them they aren't good enough to work with us, and behaving like arrogant jerks will drive them to the liberals...

WHO ALSO NEED THEM

We need to realize that our views are the minority, just as the liberal views are the minority. The vast number of people and politicians do not have strongly held convictions and therefore can be swung from one side to the other with little effort. We need to get those people who are in the middle to swing our way and help us move our agenda forward.

This is one of the best posts I've seen on FR in quite a while. Ought to be required reading on FR, IMO.

Thanks!

[GOPJ]

Good point:

I've always considered myself a Conservative Republican, and feel like I fit right in with MOST freepers' beliefs and ideals......and their distaste for the left.

Thanks for what you do, Jim. This is a great place, no matter what you call it.

[GOPJ]

Good point:

I've always considered myself a Conservative Republican, and feel like I fit right in with MOST freepers' beliefs and ideals......and their distaste for the left.

Thanks for what you do, Jim. This is a great place, no matter what you call it.

[justshe]

Pinging the *GOP PING List*. Apologies if you have already seen this post from Jim Robinson.

EXCERPT:
Is Free Republic too "Republican?" I've been receiving a lot of complaints lately that FR is not really conservative, it's Republican. Is that a bad thing?

When I started FR (see the wayback machine) I don't think I even used the labels conservative or Republican. But, even though I was a registered Democrat at the time (I registered when I was very young), I was definitely anti-Democrat. And definitely anti-big government, anti-government corruption, anti-government abuse, anti-liberalism, etc. And I still am.

As FR became more and more popular, people started referring to it as a "conservative" web site and so eventually I posted the label to the front page. If it no longer applies, big deal. What's in a label? I'll change it to "Republican" if demand warrants.

[deport]

Thanks... saw it earlier and am really indifferent as to what Jim calls his forum. It would probably make very little difference in the headaches he has to put up with daily, hourly. He has the final solution in his hands and that is the ban/suspend function which Jim uses very judiciously, imo. He has the patience of Job and I wouldn't want to sit at his keyboard and filter through all he has to read.

I suspect it will only get worse as the primary season and the general election approaches. You know, keep the politicans feet to the fire while cheerleading for thier re-election will make things interesting. With all the different factions/issue groups trying to sway the outcome things can only become more hectic, imo. Some of the factions/issue groups include but limited to the following: abortion, immigration, tax, education, liberal, conservatives, 3rd parties, gay/homosexual, judicial, one issuers, etc. etc.... Given this array of people on the forum there will be dissent.