Bush at War With Right Over Court Nomination (And why Rush Limbaugh &c are sadly mistaken)

The White House branded its increasingly vocal conservative critics as "cynical" yesterday as the dispute over President George W Bush's nomination of his official lawyer to the Supreme Court deepened.

Many Republicans have described Harriet Miers as unqualified for such an important job. They are lobbying for an ultra-conservative with an established judicial record.

Critics have seized on correspondence between Miss Miers and the Bush family to portray her as a lightweight.

Mr Bush's top aide, the White House chief of staff Andy Card, criticised the campaign by influential party figures to prevent Miss Miers's elevation to America's most powerful court.

"I'm a little surprised they came out of the box so cynically," he told a television interviewer.

The use of such language by a top Bush aide about prominent Republican party supporters was unprecedented, indicating a growing sense of desperation.

The White House has suffered a dire six weeks during which it has been criticised for the handling of Hurricane Katrina, the Iraq war and its legislative programme.

As Mr Bush's approval ratings have sunk to an all-time low, his chief strategist, Karl Rove, has faced questioning for his role in the leaking of a CIA agent's name.

To add to the Republican's woes, the party's "iron fist" in Congress, Tom DeLay, has been indicted for criminal conspiracy and money laundering.

Newsweek magazine noted yesterday that the Bush administration was now being seen as "a political machine that has lost its bearings, and even its skill, in a whorl of war, hurricanes, scandal, internal strife and second-term ennui".

Such talk has increased the Bush team's determination not to suffer defeat on the Miers nomination. But many believe the case against her is already overwhelming.

"RINO (Republican In Name Only) can only be applied to they who would vote something other than GOP if dissatisfied with the GOP's candidate."
You are still very wrong in your definition of a RINO, and I think it's intentional so you can dig at people who stick to their principles and convictions and don't tolerate politicians who do not. The original and true definition of a RINO is a person running for office as a Republican, but they do not support issues lined out on the Republican plank.
When the GOP itself fails to put up only persons who support it's plank as a whole, or most all of it, then it is the DUTY of conservatives to NOT vote for that wishy washy liberal in conservative's clothing, and send him or her right to the bottom. Calling a voter a RINO because they won't just brainlessly toss their vote to a candidate that is known to NOT be a real Republican, like Snowe or Collins or Specter, is really ignorant. And you know it. According to your silly definition of RINO, I'm a RINO. And as I stated in one of my previous posts, given my past, and the fact I've lived my whole life, over 30 years, in just about the most conservative state in the country, Texas, which also has the largest Republiacan Congressional delegation in Congress, that's just silly. You know that too. It's pretty obvious you're just trying to stir the pot by calling people RINOs who clearly are not.

Being loyal to ones convictions first and foremost, does not a RINO make. Being loyal to a party first and foremost, checking your convictions at the door when they conflict with someone running for office in that party, a hypocritical stupid person DOES make. That's a fact.

Excellent post. That is the way it should be looked at. If more Christians who constantly vote democrat would live how you illustrated, and stop being democrats first and Christians second, the democrats would be a permanent minority party. That's the problem we have with my wife's grandparents. They're long time southern Baptists, pro-life, support the death penalty, against gun control, on and on and on but they're among the brainwashed masses who continue to vote democrat "because they've always been democrats", despite the fact that based on their Christian convictions, most democrats would spit on them for being pro-life, etc so on, which is totally in conflict with the democrat plank. People who are that short sighted and unable to get their priorities straight really annoy me. Given the plank of the democrat party, I am of the opinion and belief that all Christians who vote mostly or entirely democrat have decided either consciously or unconsciously that they are democrats first, and Christians second. I don't know how else to explain that kind of lack of real importance of ones convictions and beliefs. Other than unadulterated stupidity, which I won't rule out, since a great many democrats are just flat stupid when it comes to the real world and what makes it work.

"So we can tolerate the withdrawal or filibuster of other nominees or their recess appointments but it is unthinkable to have the same happen with Miers, a lawyer without any qualifications or constitutional writings comparable to any of these same nominees?"

Are you aware of the fact that over 75% of the Supreme Court Justices in the history of this country fit that criteria you described as being unacceptable, including the first Chief Justice, John Jay? 3 of 4 Justices ever had not been judges, and a large number of that 75% were not lawyers either. Renquist wasn’t a judge before he was a Justice either. How did that work? The constitution states very clearly that it does not have to be a judge that is put up to the Supreme Court. And it’s insulting to suggest that after over 30 years as a lawyer, she’s not smart enough and doesn’t know the Constitution. If you don’t know the Constitution, you can’t pass the bar and do what she’s done in her career. This infighting, as I’ve said a million times, accomplishes nothing. It would be far wiser to wait to hear what she has to say before torching her to the ground. But whatever. Fire away. How will you feel in a few months if her findings are right in line with Scalia and Thomas? Will you be as vocal in your admission that you were wrong as everyone is being with their criticism? I’m waiting to actually hear what she has to say before I blast or praise her. You mentioned people who said negative things about her, as though they must be right, but you and others seem to dismiss the dozens of people who have known her personally and professionally for decades and strongly support her qualifications. How do you make that work? You put up people who say what you think, but disregard most people who have spoken about her who actually know her, when they say things you don’t want to hear. That makes no sense. Someone who doesn’t know the Constitution and is a weak minded indecisive person does not get to be one of the 50 top lawyers in the country. Most of these judges that you would want to have the nomination, were never one of the 50 top lawyers in the country when they were lawyers, and Miers was responsible for picking them to put up to W. Bush to be judges.

If Miers turns out to be a suiterite liberal, W. is still doing no worse than Reagan did with Justices. Reagan got burned with o’conner and kennedy. They’ve been moderates at best. I just wish that conservatives would wait until there is something concrete to fire at Miers about. So far, there is not. It’s all speculation and supposition that is being shot at her. And that’s not fact. If everyone would just be patient and wait until the hearings to open up on her and Bush, the conservative movement would be alot better off right now for it. But whatever. IF in a few months it’s evident that Miers is a conservative constructionist Justice, maybe you and others will see fit to spend as much time addressing your friendly fire as you are now addressing how liberal you THINK she will be. I’m nervous about it too and desperately want another Scalia or Thomas, not another souter or o’conner, but until there is something concrete and until she speaks for herself in the hearings, I’m not going to open up on someone based on supposition and what I "think" "may" happen. That’s silly and accomplishes nothing.

"Listen, think whatever you want to think, it's your right, as it is mine to think whatever I think. "

You can "think" whatever you want, but your wrong. I'm not talking about what I "think". I'm talking about what I KNOW is FACT in reality. A RINO is someone who says they're a Republican, as a vehicle to get elected, even though they do not support the Republican plank, and actually oppose much or most of it. THAT is a RINO. Like I said I've been registered Republican since I was 18, and if all the Republicans who voted for Perot had voted for Bush 41, clinton wouldn't have been President, since he didn't even get 48% of the vote in 92. But a voter who is a registered Republican who supports a REAL conservative Republican, instead of some liberal running as a Republican, like chaffee or snowe or spector, is not a RINO. It's someone supporting the most important ideal of real conservatism. The convictions and ideals of conservative ideology above a party name. Brainless voting of the party line is the democrat constituency. Not the Republican constituency. It’s silly that you continue to argue this. You are just flat wrong in what you’re saying. Voting Republican no matter who is running, even if they don’t represent most of the Republican plank, isn’t something to be proud of. It demonstrates a total lack of independent thinking, which is the case with many democrat voters who just vote the big "D" every time the party masters tell them to do so. That is NOT how the Republican party is. The fact that Republican voters will not prop up fake phony liberals running as a Republican is the safety mechanism for when the RNC fails to make sure that those running as Republicans actually support and believe in the party plank. Your suggestion that a liberal running as a Republican is more important to be loyal to than the Republican party plank itself is silly. If someone doesn’t support at least most of the Republican party plank then they have no business running as a Republican, and it’s the voters RESPONSIBILITY to make sure that milk toast liberals don’t take over the party by posing to be Republicans. There are too many liberal Republicrats as it is. Six at least in the Senate, dozens in the House. TOO MANY!

What I’m wondering is, how can you really be a real conservative if you think that registered Republicans are obligated to vote for a particular Republican even if that person doesn’t support the Republican plank and is nothing more than a liberal democrat who just changed parties, not beliefs. THAT is brainless. You really need to do some self-analysis on this. Your facts are wrong, and your arguments defies all logic. What is RIGHT and CORRECT based on FACT and CONVICTION and CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES MUST come before some party loyalty. THAT is the bedrock foundation of real conservatism. And in case you didn’t know it, The Christian conservative movement is what brought about the Republican majority. NOT the liberal democrat migration to the Republican party without changing ideals. If it wasn’t for the Christian conservative movement in this country becoming politically active, the Republicans would still be a minority in the House and Senate. Instead of just telling me to think what I want, prove me wrong on any of these points I have made. You are just flat wrong and you know it. This is not about different thought. This is about you putting up an incorrect premise and trying to state that it is as right as any others because it’s what you think. That’s a complete and total CROCK! You’re wrong. Period.

Based on many of your posts, you seem to be a solid conservaitve, so your posts about "RINOS" and what makes one a RINO really makes no sense. I've preached for years to people about how silly it is for a real conservative to vote with a libertarian or constitution party because of perceived faults of the Republican party.

However, real conservative, and registered Republican voter, deliberately voting for a liberal who opposes most or all of the Republican plank, running as a Republican just makes no sense. If someone like that comes out of the primaries, like Specter did, I'd just not vote. Wouldn't vote for them, wouldn't vote for any of the other candidates, since if the Republican candidate in a general election isn't a real conservative, that means that NO real conservative has a chance of winning. Democrats don't put up real conservatives against liberal Republicans. A race like that is pink vs. pinker. While I don't think Toomey would have won in PA (still too democrat leaning), if I was a resident there, I would have voted for Toomey in the primary, and if left with Specter being the Republican choice, I don't know if I'd vote in that Senate race at all. To vote for a Specter type Republican is to knowingly vote for someone who is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etc so on, who is agains most of the Republican plank, and votes with the democrats almost as often as with his own Republicans. You really think voting for someone like that, a REAL pink RINO is the obligation of any dedicated strong conservative voter? That just makes no sense to me, and I'm someone who over the years has fussed at people who are really conservative for voting outside the party. To do so, I'd be voting for someone who disagrees with most of my political beliefs and ideals. I'd have to swallow hard and go home and take a shower right away. Because I just became part of the problem. Propping up some RINO RepublicRAT who doesn't stand up for the plank of the party he claims to belong to. How do you do that? This is where my "Christian first" belief comes in. It is not proper to support someone you KNOW does not believe correctly.

"I'll take it futher. Political parties should not be! Every candidate should have to run as a party of one to be judged on his individual merits and records, not on his party affiliation."

The problem with that is, in a Representative Constitutional Republic, which is what the United States form of government is most accurately described as, not a "Democracy", a "no party" political landscape would be a disaster. Nothing would ever be done, and there would be hundreds of competing interrestes on all levels. Political parties are necessary, the American people need to just learn to vote for the party which most reflect their convictions and beliefs, which is why I am a registered Republican. To make a duel legislative form of government function and actually accomplish things, you have to have large blocks of like minded people who are members of political parties that are identified by their beliefs and ideals, their "plank". The problem is, the Republican party has allowed people like specter, snowe, collins, chaffee and others to be "Republicans" when they only marginally support half of the Republican party plank, in some cases, less than half. The problem with the democrat party is that their plank says what all liberals believe, but liberal democrats running for office NEVER say what they really believe, unless they're in a safe liberal district or state, like kennedy, kerry, biden, pelosi, and frank. Most others never say what they really think, because they know most Americans are socially and fiscaly and ideologically conservative, so they lie. And too many democrat voters are mind numbed slaves on the plantation of the democrat party, obeying thier political masters at all costs, voting democrat all the time, even though most democrat politicians, and the democrat party plank is totally opposite of what many of those mind numbed democrats believe. So given that comparrison, there is FAR more wrong with the democrat party than the Republican party. Also given that, even with all the political attacks on the Republican party, the Republicans will still pick up seats next year, because real conservatives that think for themselves know where real conservative values lay politically. With Republicans, not democrats. If anything, I am hoping anyway, all this SCOTUS strife will strengthen the conservative movement, because many will figure they're not conservative enough. God willing that will result in a Republican President who will do all the good things Bush has done; tax cuts, rebuilding the military, pro-life support, judicial nominees, education reform, medicare reform) and do the things that Bush hasn't done that he should have (border control, REAL immigration reform, budget discipline and use of line item veto). I am hopeful that the GOP will find a really solid across the board conservative for '08.

I see no circumstance that a liberal democrat, which is all that gets the RAT nod anymore, could beat a solid conservative Republican for President. The '04 county by county map shows that. I mean, what state did Bush win in '04 that a hitlary, kerry, edwards, gore, dean, pick-a-liberal could possibly win from a solid across the board conservative in 2008? I can't think of one myself. kerry and his trolls went on and on about how "if I'd of just gotten 100,000 more votes in Ohio, I'd be President". Only 100,000??? That's a BIG number. And the total number of votes kerry won by in five of the states he won was less than 100,000 votes. That indicates the Republicans are far closer to picking up additional states in '08 than the democrats are. That's how I see it anyway.

Fire away. How will you feel in a few months if her findings are right in line with Scalia and Thomas? Will you be as vocal in your admission that you were wrong as everyone is being with their criticism? I’m waiting to actually hear what she has to say before I blast or praise her.

If we end up with another Souter, I'm not going to be much interested in who admits what. You act as though the battle for the Court means little more.

If Miers turns out to be a suiterite liberal, W. is still doing no worse than Reagan did with Justices. Reagan got burned with o’conner and kennedy. They’ve been moderates at best. I just wish that conservatives would wait until there is something concrete to fire at Miers about.

I think it's plain enough you want another Souter or O'Connor. Or at least you wouldn't mind it. That's not surprising as many of the Miers supporters here are exactly the same but they're more careful about tipping their hands.

Given yesterday's announcement by Cherthoff that we will expel all illegals within one year and that conservative insiders have tied this move directly to the furor from the conservative base over Miers and the heat that has been applied to Congress over spending, I think those who oppose the conservative agenda of a smaller and less intrusive government, a strict Court and proper borders may have a chance to make advances.

Here at FR, those who have suffered the most abuse are those who have advanced exactly these positions. And we will drag the rest of you kicking and screaming along with us. You'd better learn to like it. We're the same people that sunk good ol' Brownie too. As I recall, you all didn't like that either but we conservatives did make it happen.

And when we do, will you admit your error? That's rhetorical. I'm not really in this thing to wring apologies out of people, some who are liberal Republicans, over who was right.

I want to see change. Too bad the rest of you are so eager to defeat the conservative agenda but that's your business. However, the GOP knows you'll vote for them if they tell you to shove it and you'll eagerly thank them and vote for them again.

Thanks again for all your help in demanding an unflinching conservative agenda.</sarcasm>

I agree with you that this fight is very bad for the Republican Party.

But I disagree with your other points as well as the thrust of this article.

"and the wing which is committed to governing and which realizes that compromise is essential to successful governance. "

And I suppose the "compromise" wing of the DemocRat Party gave us Bader-Ginsberg and Breyer??

Or was it the "compromise" wing of the Republican Party which approved them??

This is not a case of "ultra-right wing conservatives"
(those adjectives generally preceed "conservative" in newspeak) wanting an ultra-right-wing ideologue on the Court.

Its a case of a substantial number of mainstream Republicans who supported Bush and believed him when he said that he was going to appoint qualified Justices who would interpret the Constitution, not legislate from the bench, taking issue with this candidate.

Harriet Miers is simply not qualified for the very high office to which Bush is nominating her. Her resume is fine for an attorney, for a corporate executive, for a legal advisor, a personal friend or a church donut baker.

It does not demonstrate the intelligence, ability, and Constitutional knowledge of a Roberts, a Thomas, a Borke or a Scalia. As a matter of fact, the woman probably isn't even in the same intellectual league as our leftist opponents on the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, her background does not indicate she can be relied upon as a staunch original intent, strict constructionist which we will need to overturn the kinds of decisions the Court has been handing down recently and with which the majority of Republicans and all conservatives disagree.

I could be wrong, but the evidence indicates otherwise.

Bush is doing the very best to create an intraparty squabble over this appointment, and his flawed border policies.

Barring a miracle, he is DELIVERING into the hands of the Democrats - a party with NO solutions for ANY problems - a sure victory in 2006 and 2008 by his intrasigence on these issues.

"I think it's plain enough you want another Souter or O'Connor. Or at least you wouldn't mind it. That's not surprising as many of the Miers supporters here are exactly the same but they're more careful about tipping their hands."

Are you on crack or something? That’s what pisses me off so much about guys like you. You make that kind of accusation and you don’t even have a clue who you’re talking to or what they’re really like. I doubt there’s anyone here as politically and ideologically conservative as I am. Go read all my posts before the Miers nomination and then recognize how stupid your statement was. I was hoping and praying for Luddig or Owens for this seat. But that’s not who W. nominated. What I’ve said quite clearly and people like you have either ignored or haven’t understood, is that I am waiting to have some EVIDENCE, PROOF, FACTS, before I come out slamming someone like Miers based one GUESSWORK, SUPPOSITION, and SECOND HAND UNINFORMED COMMENTS about Miers, spewed by people who don’t know her and have never worked with her.

If being a "real Republican" as you seem to suggest, means tearing into someone who has yet speak for themselves, because of fears and guesses on what may or may not happen, then the Republican party has become a bastardized version of it’s former great self. The kind of insulting arrogant presumptive statement you made to me is the kind of stupidity I am only used to hearing from whacked out liberals. You don’t know me. You don’t have a CLUE how conservative I am, and what all I’ve done actively for the Republican party, but you presume to suggest I’m a closet liberal. Go find something I’ve said here that would suggest that and post it here for all to see. If you can’t do that, then shut up and grow up. I’m no lib, and I’m no moderate. I’ve been vocal here and my whole life about despising people like that for either their total lack of morals and values, or no spine or courage to admit what they really believe in. You don’t know what you’re talking about. All I’ve said this whole time is to not shoot from the hip and give in to irrational emotional tantrums because of who Miers isn't.

That accomplishes nothing and shows a level of immaturity and impulse control problems. THAT is what I have seen on the part of most who are anti-Miers. I am not Pro or Anti miers, I just want to wait and see what she has to say for herself before I cut her off at the knees. The fact that to someone like you, someone who is waiting to have some facts before taking action, is Pro-Miers too, really shows you are giving in to unchecked emotional rage, and really need to back off. I am as conservative as anyone on here, and just because I am neutral on Miers, suggesting that frothing anti-Miers fanatics be patient and pray and take a deep breath, doesn’t make me less conservative. The one mistake I made was in thinking that most all on Free Republic were rational adults who wouldn’t shoot first and ask questions later. You all need to chill out, grow up, and quit trying to make people like me look like moderates or liberals, when the reality is we who are demanding patience until the hearings are 100% conservatives who agree with all of the real Christian conservative movement and have lived as such for over 20 years.

What I’ve seen from the anti-Miers crowd here is a bunch of people who are so upset that Miers isn’t who they wanted to be nominated, they’re willing to tear into ANYONE who doesn’t feel exactly the same, and isn’t willing to torch her and Bush to the ground until they hear what she has to say at the hearings, to see if that uncontrolled rage at her is justified. There is no more proof that Miers will be a souter than there is that she will be a Scalia. And your insulting inference that I want another souter when you don’t even know me shows a total lack of maturity and respect for others. Grow up. And if you’re a real conservative, act like it and quit insulting the character and beliefs of someone you don’t even know.

If Miers shows herself to be a souterite or a spinless coward like o’conner, I’ll be right there ripping Miers and making calls and writing letters. Until then, there is no clear evidence she is as liberal as they are. I’ve volunteered for conservative Republican campaigns, been a delegate at the Texas Republican convention, worked with pro-life organizations, worked with the Christian Coalition, went to Louisiana last year to volunteer for Charles Boustanee to help become the first Republican Congressman for that district in decades, and been a registered Republican since I was 18 and have only ever voted for Republicans all the years since then. What the hell have YOU done for the conservative Republican cause that gives you the right to tell me I’m some moderate or liberal!? You presume things that you do not know. Now be a man and apologize to me for your childish statements in your 374 post, and treat other conservatives with the same respect that you would demand for yourself. Just because they don’t agree with your explosive emotional tirades against Miers without facts or evidence to back them up. If you had any idea how conservative I am politically, religiously, ideologically, or economically, or had heard arguments I’ve had over the years with liberals, who’ve called me a flaming homophobic Christian radical nazi because I voice my conservative beliefs and am not ashamed about doing it, you’d know what a fool you are for accusing me of that. If the Republican party is filled with people who now turn on other conservatives because they demand patience and facts before blowing someone up, then the Republican party really needs to improve it’s quality control before allowing someone to register as such.

I DO demand an unflinching conservative agenda and have made that clear in the body of my posts before the Miers post, and for many years before Free Republic was even a concept. Take your sarcasm and shove it. You’re not debating an issue, you’re being an insulting name calling child who can’t voice your position against Miers, without personally tearing down those who don’t share it, and that’s not acceptable.

I share your frustration and fear. I wish it had been Owens or Luddig, but honestly, I don't feel confident that them or someone like them could have been confirmed with all the pathetic moderate and liberal democrats in the Judiciary committee and the Senate. If such a candidate was defeated with the help of Republicans, then we'd definitely get a o'conner moderate at best. The one thing I am hopeful of, is that Bush is a good judge of character, which he has been so far, and that he knows that Miers is a real conservative after his decade long relationship with her, and that because of his personal knowledge of her, and her voicing of opinions to him over the years, he knows she will be a Justice like Scalia and Thomas. That's something only he can know, and no one else can disprove that possibility as it's something only Bush himself knows for certain.

I also am hopeful and prayerful that, as Bush is a dedicated Christian, as he's proven, he has spent a lot of time in prayer about this and truly knows that Miers will be the kind of Justice that is needed, like Scalia and Thomas are. Anti-Miers people keep saying "well, that's just "trust Bush", and I don't". It has nothing to do with trust. I trust no man. It has to do with faith. And I do have faith and believe that Bush is a dedicated Christian, and that he knows this woman, far better than any of her critics know her. If he is correct in his belief and feelings about her personal philosophy, then we will be very happy with Miers in a few months. If he's wrong and was not mindful in prayer about her at all, and is a terrible judge of character, then we will have been disappointed by W. because of Miers, just like we were let down by Reagan with kennedy and o'conner and Bush 41 with souter. Right now, there are no facts to substantiate the strong opposition of Miers. It's all supposition and fear of what may happen. God willing, Bush will be as right about Miers as he was with all his other judicial nominees which were ALL good solid conservatives, which Miers was the main person to pick them to send to Bush. I hold out hope for all of that that this will work out, and I say that out of faith, not trust. Lots of prayer is needed, and if she wouldn't be the kind of Justice that Scalia and Thomas have proven to be, then God willing, she will withdraw herself or Bush will withdraw her.

Are you on crack or something?

Given how affective your response is, I think I'm dead on target.

You don’t have a CLUE how conservative I am, and what all I’ve done actively for the Republican party, but you presume to suggest I’m a closet liberal. Go find something I’ve said here that would suggest that and post it here for all to see. If you can’t do that, then shut up and grow up.

I think your previous post makes it clear enough that you don't really consider yourself to be a part of the conservative grassroots:

"I just wish that conservatives would wait until there is something concrete to fire at Miers about."

You refer to conservatives as a group you have nothing in common with and with whom you are not associated. And I suspect that is true. What I can't figure out is why you want to hide it so badly. There are, after all, plenty of Bushbots and party-over-principle folks here at FR who will welcome you with open arms. It's not as though you'll get booted for flying under your true colors.

As for the much ballyhooed notion of waiting until Miers has testified, that's a lot like waiting to find out the result of the Senate confirmation vote. By that time, it's likely to be too late, particularly given how many GOP senators voted to confirm the nomination of the chief counsel of the ACLU, Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg, to the Court during the Clinton regime. And a mistake with Miers may not be corrected for years or decades to come. Or perhaps ever. Bush may get no more nominees. And if a Dim gets the WH in '08 and holds it for two terms, it would be during the 2016-2020 term when we might next get a chance.

Your obvious complacence to such a dangerous outcome, one that can nullify everything conservatives have fought for since the Reagan era (and even before) indicates to me that you really don't care much whether Miers is the justice we need, no matter the consequences to an agenda that conservatives have worked for decades to enact.

I don't know how dull-witted a person can possibly be to see that this is, as it was always said to be, the single test of whether it was worth installing a second Bush administration. If we don't get strict constructionist justices on the Court, then having elected Lyndon Johnson to his third and fourth terms as president will have been an exercise in futility for conservatives in the Republican party.

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.