Posted on 10/31/2014 8:02:13 PM PDT by Coleus
I haven’t seen evidence that any Republican is good on fiscal issues
1844, that was the contest of neighboring pols. Clay from KY and Polk from TN. Tennessee was marginally a Whig state and so it voted for Clay over its Governor, Polk. Had 3rd party candidate Birney got out and endorsed the Whig ticket, NY state would’ve put Clay over the top. Birney, ironically, was a KY native who formerly had worked for Clay.
Too bad. Maybe Republican voters should just skip that race.
My long-time congressman and neighbor. He is a good guy, but virtually inherited the seat. The area is predominantly Republican, but is changing. In the town where Freylinghuysen lives, the vote in the general election was formerly about 9 to 1 in favor of the Republicans. Now it is only about 2 to 1. Rich liberals have been moving in, supplemented by inhabitants of the low-income housing mandated by the out-of-control state courts.
Rodney is a veteran, and a good, common-sense guy on most issues. He has some “Red Tory” tendencies, but at least he thinks for himself, and is never intimidated by liberal pressure groups. In public meetings, he always keeps his cool, and never shows any lack of patience, even with the dumbest constituents. I always walk way wondering how he does it. I would be more likely to take the Christie approach, and tell some of those people to shut up and see me later.
The old-style liberal Republicans (who helped ruin NJ) tend to be weak on social issues, and over the top on environmental causes.
I have heard Rodney discuss the abortion issue, and he manages to be sympathetic to pro-life voices, and has actually on occasion voted on the pro-life side in Congress, I suspect partly on constitutional grounds. If I get a chance, I will ask him about some of these cases.
Like his stand on opposing draining the reservoirs and replacing them with ugly concrete tanks.......
me too. but being the pro-abortion liberal person he is, I bet he’s in favor of not changing the law protecting canada geese. It’s one of the reasons why these reservoirs get polluted.
Inconsequential. >>
tell that to the dead babies in the medical waste can.
I don’t think it’s “too bad” that a democrat scumbag who makes Rodney look like Jesse Helms has no chance to win, I think it’s “excellent”.
Polk was one of the very few RAT Presidents that wasn’t total shite, but I wonder what kind of President Clay would have been.
KY and TN were good voting states, voted Whig until 1856. Ky, the #1 Whig/proto-whig state outside of New England even opposed Andrew Jackson. Such a shame it went RAT later on.
TMBGs are boss.
Tyler though was a stinking WINO, one of the worst VP picks ever.
Clay was opposed to the annexation of Texas because he knew it would lead to a war with Mexico. He knew that the lands taken from Mexico in war would reopen the Missouri Compromise for renegotiation. He remembered just how close the nation came to disunion in 1820 over that negotiation, and he believed that opening it up again could possibly lead to disunion and civil war. He clearly saw the risk of annexing Texas.
Polk ran on one issue only: He would annex Texas. If he could do it in his first term, he would not run for re-election.
Remini believes that if the election had not been stolen, Clay would have left the Texas issue alone, there would have been no war with Mexico, and the Civil War could have been avoided or at least delayed.
He also believed that had Clay managed to hold off his tuberculosis and live another decade, he could have played "good cop" in the Senate while Lincoln played "bad cop" in the White House, thus managing to prevent the South from seceding.
Had Clay carried NY (which Polk carried by only 1.05%), he wouldn’t have needed LA (which Polk carried by 2.60%, so, if he stole it, he must have cheated like crazy). Clay lost NY because James Birney of the anti-slavery Liberty Party got 3.25% in NY. Had Clay spoken out more strongly against the expansion of slavery, he might have won (although since Clay only carried TN by 0.10%, he probably would have needed to carry IN or PA as well to make up fir the loss of TN had he spoken out that way).
Imagine an America without the Texas annexation and the Mexican War. Would we ever have acquired the west? I suppose Mexico may have eventually offered to sell it to us.
I read somewhere that the Gadsden purchase could have been MUCH larger, including Baja and several Northern Mexican states, but one side or the other eventually balked.
I have a perfect name for the film: "AND TYLER TOO"
Hmm, it’s probably cause (I’d wager) most Americans are unaware of the history.
Sounds like a cool idea to me.
As I recall the sale price for Gadsden was enormous-—over $60 billion in modern money. Santa Anna needed cash to rebuild his army. There were no polls then. Some historians claim Mexicans would have welcomed a part in the US, but most think the Mexicans were still very hostile (I agree). No one but Santa Anna could have sold Gadsden. The Mexican legislature already rejected a railroad land rights deal across the isthmus that he approved. Some say had the South had a chance to obtain more land in the Mexican Cession, but remember that there was intense opposition to adding more slave territory to the US. We briefly, in 1854, had a chance to get Cuba but by then the South was obsessed with Kansas.
Sometimes you have to take down a couple of RINOs, even if the result is worse, to make a point and clean out the party and then come up with something better in two years.
Primary.
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.