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

Skip to comments.

The coming GOP supermajority in the US Senate; how Bush will completely reshape the Supreme Court

Posted on 03/18/2002 3:54:43 PM PST by ken5050

Like many here on FR, I've spent the last week knashing my teeth over Daschle's tactics in the Senate...blocking Judge Pickering's confirmation, blocking drilling in Alaska, and now this inane effort to make the Homeland Security director testify in Congress. And I've been hoping, like many of you, that Sen Miller would cross the aisle to the GOP side. Well, consider this scenario.....


TOPICS: Front Page News; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: electionuscongress
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 next last
To: ken5050
..."Murray....It's time for her to go...she should be an easy target for the GOP"....

Based on her recent re-election, the GOP didn't seem much interested in their candidate winning against her....so what changes things....they find a candidate who is a suck-upRINO or what?

61 posted on 03/18/2002 5:32:25 PM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: deport
Way, way too optimistic. Bunning is vulnerable on the GOP side. On the Dem side, I only see the Hollings seat as vulnerable, and maybe as an outside shot, Reid and conceivably Dashcle (or his seat). But houses of Congress are going to be closely balanced for awhile.
62 posted on 03/18/2002 5:34:53 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
Pretty wishful thinking for 2004. Let's just knock off Cleland, Johnson, Carnahan and Wellstone this year, and work from there. That should be enough to pack the court.
63 posted on 03/18/2002 5:39:11 PM PST by The Old Hoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

From NEWSMAX:




The Socialist Democrat Strategy:
Win the Congress by Wrecking the Economy

Phil Brennan

Wednesday, Jan. 9, 2002


Pity poor Tom Daschle. Pity poor Dick Gephardt. Pity poor Terry MacAuliffe. Prior to Sept. 11, these three Socialist Democrats planned to demonize President Bush as part of their grand strategy to win control of Congress in the November elections.


The gist of their campaign against Mr. Bush was to challenge his legitimacy as president, basing their attack on the theme that he really lost the 2000 election and had no business sitting in the Oval Office, which rightfully belonged to the Algore.


For this he must be punished in the 2002 elections, and driven out of office in 2004.


They also planned to go after the black vote, relying on their hoped-for ability to convince African-Americans of the blatantly false accusation that their right to vote, or to have their votes counted, had been violated in the 2000 election.


They were also gearing up to challenge Mr. Bush personally, charging that he is some kind of nincompoop totally unprepared to assume and carry out the duties of the presidency.


All of that fell apart after 9-11. Out of that disaster emerged the real George Bush – a tough, no-nonsense leader entirely capable of handling his job superbly under the most difficult of circumstances, a George Bush who has won the admiration and respect of a huge majority of his fellow Americans, including a clear majority of African-Americans, by his deft handling of the war against terrorism.


To make matters worse, some among the Socialist Democrat Party's most reliable allies – the elitist mainstream media – had the gall to spend a million or so dollars on a probe of the disputed Florida 2000 election that ended up, ever so reluctantly, by conceding that George Bush most probably did win the state's electoral votes that put him over the top after all.


So what to do?


It didn't take them long to dredge up the old 1992 campaign slogan "It's the economy, stupid." In no time at all they had commercials blaming the economy on the "Bush recession," hoping the voters would forget that the downturn in the economy started under Bill Clinton.


Still smarting over their inability to stop the president's tax cut program from going into effect, they now have the gall to blame the current economic malaise on that tax cut, going back to the old Socialist Democrat strategy of inciting class warfare and class hatred.


Their answer to the recession is simply to promote a socialist program of ladling out billions of tax dollars to buy votes, thereby deepening the war-induced deficits and doing nothing, as President Bush has pointed out, to create jobs for the unemployed or get the economy back on track with programs that work.


Left with no alternative other than to revive their age-old campaign strategy of class warfare and spend, spend, spend-and-elect politics, the Socialist Democrats are heading for an electoral catastrophe in November. Their barely concealed desire to see the economy worsen in the belief that the voters will blame Bush and the GOP will backfire and the Republicans will widen their margins in both House and Senate ... if.


If the president recognizes that his strategy of seeking bipartisanship at the cost of pursuing his plans for a revivified America is a self-defeating one. You cannot appease an enemy bent on destroying you. The only way George Bush could satisfy Daschle, Gephardt, MacAuliffe and such leftist propaganda sheets as the New York Times would be to erect a statue of Karl Marx on the White House lawn and pay homage to it three times a day.


There are signs that Mr. Bush knows this and plans to act accordingly. His vow that the only way taxes can be raised is "over my dead body" brought jeers from the Marxist media but loud cheers from his fellow Americans who love a warrior.


It's just a beginning, but a good and persuasive one, with the promise of more of the same to come. The Socialist Democrats are about to learn the same lesson Osama bin Laden is learning: Don't mess with George W. Bush.


Moreover, the president is taking full advantage of the bully pulpit, patiently explaining the simple economic truths so disparaged by Socialist Democrats, that the way out of an economic slump is to encourage small and large companies and the investors, whose money supports them, to create jobs by providing them with tax relief and other such commonsense incentives.


Most important: The President has to hammer home the shocking truth that the Socialist Democrat Party is determined to block all attempts to get the economy working again, thus creating more joblessness in the belief that an army of angry unemployed and the owners of failed businesses will blame their plight on Bush and the GOP and vote for Socialist Democrats in the November congressional elections.


This is their Achilles' heel.


Control of the Congress is vital. Should the Socialist Democrats manage to take control of both Houses on Capitol Hill, the nation will experience a stepped-up version of the havoc being wreaked upon America by a Marxist-controlled Senate determined to turn a recession into a depression in order to win in November.


It is imperative for the welfare of the nation that the president and his party get out there on the campaign trail now – congressional district by congressional district – and begin to lambaste the sheer dishonesty of their opponents and not let up until Election Day, November 2002.


Failure to do that could, in effect, hand control of the Congress over to Marxism's poster woman on the Hill, Mrs. William Clinton, and her sleazy socialist compatriots. Wouldn't that be nice?


Phil Brennan is a veteran journalist who writes for NewsMax.com. He is editor & publisher of Wednesday on the Web (http://www.pvbr.com) and was Washington columnist for National Review magazine in the 1960s. He also served as a staff aide for the House Republican Policy Committee and helped handle the Washington public relations operation for the Alaska Statehood Committee which won statehood for Alaska. He is also a trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute.

64 posted on 03/18/2002 5:41:14 PM PST by vannrox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
Ken, when I put you through my 50/50 BS filter, I still like what I read. Good stuff, very good stuff.

BTW, Buddy is NOT dead.

65 posted on 03/18/2002 5:43:18 PM PST by AGreatPer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Captainpaintball

FROM : NEW DEMOCRATS...




NDN's elected leaders ­ Sens. John Breaux, Tom Carper, Bob Graham, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln and Reps. Cal Dooley, Harold Ford Jr., Charles Gonzalez, Jane Harman, John Larson, Jim Moran, and Adam Smith ­have created two of the most influential groups in Congress: the New Democrat Coalition (NDC) in the House and the Senate New Democrat Coalition (SNDC).


Members of both groups are moderate Democrats who advocate a new centrist, progressive approach to governing and who often reach across party lines to get things done. (To listen to NDN's elected leaders talk about the New Democrat movement, visit our leaders page and click on the picture of the leader you'd like to hear.)


Established in 1997, the House New Democrat Coalition (NDC) has grown to 74 members in the 107th Congress. The Senate New Democrat Coalition (SNDC), established in 2000, is already 20 members.


One-third of all Congressional Democrats today are New Democrats. Two-thirds of those elected since the formation of the House and Senate New Democrat Coalitions have joined the two groups. These coalitions have strength in number and a sense of common purpose that has made the NDCs two of the most influential groups in this closely divided Congress.


New Democrats in the House and Senate have developed the legislative clout to help set the agenda in Congress, regularly voting as a block on key legislation. From education reform to a balanced budget, from China PNTR to digital signatures, New Democrats have frequently provided the key swing votes needed to pass critical legislation. On average, 87% of House NDC members voted in support of nine out of ten of the bills that the group made a priority in the 106th Congress.


In 2001, New Democrats showed they are truly New Leaders for a New Time.



66 posted on 03/18/2002 5:44:42 PM PST by vannrox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MississippiDeltaDawg

The Senate New Democrat Coalition:




Established in February 2000, the SNDC is now 20 members strong and includes Senate leaders such as John Breaux (LA), Tom Carper, Bob Graham (FL), Mary Landrieu (LA), Joe Lieberman (CT) and Blanche Lincoln (AR). Click here for a full membership list.


In announcing the establishment of the SNDC in February 2000, Sen. Landrieu stated, "The American people are tired of the same old proposals and are demanding that we work together in a more creative way on the many problems facing our nation. Too often here in Washington, the loudest voices are the ones on the far left and far right. That is why this group was formed, to give voice to those in the sensible center."


The SNDC has already made its voice heard on critical issues ranging from education to trade to health care and, with a slim Democratic majority in the Senate, the Senate New Dems are increasingly determining the balance of power.


In 2001, New Democrats showed they are truly New Leaders for a New Time.



67 posted on 03/18/2002 5:47:08 PM PST by vannrox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
One possible fly in this ointment is the Republican Moderates' propensity to go into opposition when the party has a numerical minority. They then vote as Democrats.
68 posted on 03/18/2002 5:48:22 PM PST by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: StockAyatollah

To see what these NEW DEMOCRATS are up to,
as well as to how they plan to take over
both the SENATE and the Congress in 2002,
please click over HERE.


69 posted on 03/18/2002 5:51:03 PM PST by vannrox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
I beg to differ about Wyden, he is a shoe-in.
70 posted on 03/18/2002 5:51:43 PM PST by Cruising Speed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Spare us the mantra from McAuliffe's fax machine. Carper, Landrieu, all of them are scheming RAT liars.
71 posted on 03/18/2002 5:52:25 PM PST by mwl1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

THE SOCIALIST DEMOCRAT STRATEGY:
WIN CONGRESS BY WRECKING THE ECONOMY

By: Phil Brennan

Pity poor Tom Daschle. Pity poor Dick Gephardt. Pity poor Terry McAuliffe. Prior to September 11, these three Socialist Democrats planned to demonize President Bush as part of their grand strategy to win control of Congress in the November elections.

The gist of their campaign against Mr. Bush was to challenge his legitimacy as president, basing their attack on the theme that he really lost the 2000 election and had no business sitting in the Oval Office, which rightfully belonged to the Algore. For this he must be punished in the 2002 elections, and driven out of office in 2004.

They also planned to go after the Black vote, relying on their hoped-for ability to convince African Americas of the blatantly false accusation that their right to vote, or have their votes counted, had been violated.

They were also gearing up to challenge Mr. Bush personally, charging that he is some kind of nincompoop totally unprepared to assume and carry out the duties of the presidency.

All of that fell apart after 9-11. Out of that disaster emerged the real George Bush - a tough, no-nonsense leader entirely capable of handling his job superbly under the most difficult of circumstances - a George Bush who has won the admiration and respect of a huge majority of his fellow Americans, including a clear majority among African Americans, by his deft handling of the war against terrorism.

To make matters worse, some among the Socialist Democrat party's most reliable allies - the elitist mainstream media, had the gall to spend a million or so dollars on a probe of the disputed Florida 2000 election that ended up, ever so reluctantly, by conceding that George Bush most probably did win the State's electoral votes that put him over the top after all.

So what to do?

It didn't take them long to dredge up the old 1992 campaign slogan "It's the economy, stupid." In no time at all they had commercials blaming the economy on the "Bush recession," hoping the voters would forget that the downturn in the economy started under Bill Clinton. Still smarting over their inability to stop the president's tax cut program from going into effect, they now have the gall to blame the current economic malaise on that tax cut, going back to the old Socialist Democrat strategy of inciting class warfare and class hatred.

Their answer to the recession is simply to promote a socialist program of ladling out billions of tax dollars to buy votes, thereby deepening the war-induced deficits and doing nothing, as President Bush has pointed out, to create jobs for the unemployed or get the economy back on track.

Left with no alternative other than to revive their age-old campaign strategy of class warfare and spend, spend, spend and elect politics the Socialist Democrats are heading for an electoral catastrophe in November. Their barely concealed desire to see the economy worsen in the belief that the voters will blame Bush and the GOP will backfire and the Republicans will widen their margins in both House and Senate ... if -

*The President recognizes that his strategy of seeking bipartisanship at the cost of pursuing his plans for a revivified America is a self-defeating one. You cannot appease an enemy bent on destroying you. The only way George Bush could satisfy Daschle, Gephardt, MacAuliffe and such leftist propaganda sheets as the New York Times would be to erect a statue of Karl Marx on the White House lawn and pay homage to it three times a day.

There are signs that Mr. Bush knows this and plans to act accordingly. His vow that the only way taxes can be raised is "over my dead body," brought jeers from the Marxist media but loud cheers from his fellow Americans who love a warrior.

It's just a beginning, but a good and persuasive one, with the promise of more of the same to come. The Socialist Democrats are about to learn the same lesson Osama bin Laden is learning: don't mess with George W. Bush.

Moreover, the President is taking full advantage of the bully pulpit, patiently explaining the simple economic truths so disparaged by Socialist Democrats that the way out of an economic slump is to encourage small and large companies and the investors, whose money supports them, to create jobs by providing them with tax relief and other such common sense incentives.

Most important: the President has to hammer home the shocking truth that the Socialist Democrat Party is determined to block all attempts to get the economy working again, thus creating more joblessness in the belief that an army of angry unemployed and the owners of failed businesses will blame their plight on Bush and the GOP and vote for Socialist Democrats in the November congressional elections.

This is their Achilles' heel.

Control of the Congress is vital. Should the Socialist Democrats manage to take control of both Houses on Capitol Hill, the nation will experience a stepped-up version of the havoc being wreaked upon America by a Marxist controlled Senate determined to turn a recession into a depression in order to win in November.

It is imperative for the welfare of the nation that the President and his party get out there on the campaign trail now, congressional district by congressional district and begin to lambaste the sheer dishonesty of their opponents and not let up until election day, November 2002.

Failure to do that could, in effect, hand  control of the Congress over to Marxism's poster woman on the Hill, Mrs. William Clinton, and her sleazy socialist compatriots. Wouldn't that be nice?


72 posted on 03/18/2002 5:52:52 PM PST by vannrox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
A much better post. Thank you.
73 posted on 03/18/2002 5:55:16 PM PST by mwl1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: teletech

Here's the Strategy, Kid


Viewpoint Jeff Greenfield: For the Democrats, a loss has its consolations


"You can't be serious!" the earnest young democrat threw himself back in the plush chair and stared at the Wily Old Democrat. Behind the leonine head and silver-white hair, a floor-to-ceiling window framed a spectacular view of Washington, the kind of view a $750-an-hour consummate insider can afford.

"I'm as serious as a clogged tax loophole," the Wily Old Democrat said. "Been on the phone all morning tellin' anyone who'd listen to make sure G.W. wins."

"But you've been a Democrat since..." the Earnest Young Democrat began.

"...since Harry Truman was tryin' to find the White House men's room," said the W.O.D. "And I promise you, son, it'll be the best thing for us since the Republicans nominated Goldwater."

"You mean because Bush won't have a mandate, and there's no real majority in the Congress..." said the E.Y.D.

"Son, that doesn't even scratch the first vein of this gold mine," the elder said, chuckling. "Just think about it for a minute. Say it's Bush after all. You'll have a President who may well wind up with fewer votes than the other guy. And the Republicans will have maybe five votes to spare in the House and maybe one vote to spare in the Senate. Might even be 50-50. But look what some folks in his own party want from him — maybe ease up on the environment, maybe start naming those pro-life judges."

"Right, right," said the E.Y.D. "How can you want Bush to change the Supreme Court?"

The W.O.D. chuckled. "Son, try and peer around the corner just a little harder. Suppose Mr. Bush names a Clarence Thomas type. Can he get him confirmed? With 49 or 50 Democrats, and Republicans like Jim Jeffords and Olympia Snowe and those other moderates? All that'll do is fire up our base. In fact, pray he does name a fire breather. He loses in the Senate, and we get, oh, maybe $20 million or so for the next election.

"And speakin' of our base," he continued, "you're going to have two years to let our folks stew in their anger. They're gonna believe every minute that Mr. Bush, Daddy's spoiled kid, cheated his way into the White House. You want to think what that means for turnout in two years... for taking back the Congress? And, meanwhile, if Bush does try to move to the center, how about all those Republicans who've waited for their guy to get through their agenda? I don't think that's gonna be a very happy time for G.W."

The E.Y.D. shook his head. "I don't feel good at all about losing the White House." The W.O.D. smiled benignly. "Look at it this way, Son poetic justice. If we had told Bubba Bill two years ago that he had let us down, that it was time to pack his bags, we'd have had Al Gore in the White House with all of Clinton's record and none of his baggage. Instead, we all rallied around him and Gore paid the price.

"So now," he said, "we wait while G.W. turns into Jimmy Carter and kick his butt in four years with our Ronald Reagan."

"And who," the E.Y.D. asked, "would that be?"

"Son," the old man said, "even I can't see that far around the corner."

74 posted on 03/18/2002 5:56:36 PM PST by vannrox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: weepnomore

WARNING: BIG BARF ALERT:


HOWEVER IT MAY GIVE INSIGHT INTO WHY CLINTON WAS ABLE TO PULL SUCH SUPPORT...



Home

Clinton in Berkeley, January 29, 2002

Because I Won: The Cost of Being Popular
January 31, 2002
By Monica Friedlander

As he walked up to the microphone, screams of "We Love You" echoed from the back of the hall. When he was done, hordes of 18-year-old girls ran up and down endless flights of stairs to elude security guards and make it to the gym through the back door. There, students stepped on each others’ toes to touch him, nearly knocking down the very inconspicuous California governor trailing closely behind. He then proceeded to shake every hand, thank every well wisher, even take the time to shoot a few baskets with the kids. Finally back outside, he plunged one more time into the adoring crowd to grasp every stretched-out hand until his own were raw.

This was not a rock concert, but a visit to the University of California at Berkeley by former President Bill Clinton -- the first president to come to this campus since John F. Kennedy more than four decades ago. Clinton was honored by Chancellor Robert Berdahl with the university’s highest award, the Berkeley Medal, for "his lifetime of service to society."

Most of the students who camped overnight for tickets to see him were too young to have ever voted for him, but most would clearly do so in a heartbeat if given the chance.

Clinton was the hottest ticket in town the very day of the State of the Union address -- an occasion largely ignored in an area that overwhelmingly rejected George Bush at the polls. What’s more surprising is that in this ultraliberal, anti-establishment Mecca of Berkeley, a mainstream Democrat like Bill Clinton received nothing short of a hero’s welcome.

And therein lies the true reason of why the GOP feared Bill Clinton so. It was not for his views, but for his undeniable star quality, which left unsmeared could have turned the Republican strategy on its head for decades to come. And no one understood that strategy better than Bill Clinton.

Asked why the right wing despises him so, the former president answered simply, "Because I won."

This is not what Clinton came to talk about, but these three words are the ones that will be remembered by everyone who saw him on January 29, for they said as much about the country in which we live, and in which 51 million were disenfranchised a little over a year ago, as Clinton’s prepared speech said about our entire world.

"They believed there would never be a Democratic president," he said of the Republicans. "They thought they found a foolproof formula to turn us into cardboard cutouts -- superficial, one-dimensional, non-American figures. And the American people voted for me. They never thought it was legitimate. They decided ‘We should have never lost the White House. It belongs to us.’ If you want to be a Democrat or progressive and run for national office today, you have to have a pretty high pain threshold. It’s just the cost of doing business in politics today."

Clinton’s address was intended to offer students his alternate vision of America’s role in the world and of the most effective means to fight terrorism. His talk would have made for a rousing response to the same old rally-around-the-flag mantra served nationwide during the State of the Union address.

Clinton’s speech was interrupted every few minutes by spontaneous ovations, one of the loudest of which came in response to his comments about the war. Clinton endorsed the war on terrorism, but added:

"I do not believe that a law enforcement and military strategy alone is sufficient to build the world that I hope the young people in this audience will live in. I don’t want the world we live in to change the character of our country by having people dominated by fear."

He went on to describe his vision, one borne out of a belief that sharing our economic good fortune -- to which his administration contributed so greatly -- and promoting our common humanity are the most effective strategies to weed out terrorism.

"It’s a lot cheaper than going to war," he said to the delight of the crowd.

Clinton challenged the administration and the young people to focus on reducing poverty in a world in which half the people, he said, live on less than $2 a day and in which billions are sick and go to bead hungry. Reaching out to them, he said, "will create a world with more partners and fewer terrorists."

Looking at the world from a different perspective may have been the secret to his administration’s success, and this is precisely what he asked his audience to do with regard to public policy in the 21st century.

Said Clinton, "Hillary gave me a little card when I ran for President in ’92, that read: ‘Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same result.’"

On a serious note, he said, "We can do America’s fair share of economic empowerment of poor people, put all the poor kids in school, fund the [United Nation] Secretary General’s health initiative, and accelerate the effort to turn around climate change -- we can do all that for more or less what we’d spend in less than a year in Afghanistan."

As important as economic empowerment, Clinton said, is creating a world of shared values, thereby rooting out hatred that missiles alone cannot destroy.

"You have to tell people ‘We respect your differences, we’ll celebrate them, but only if you acknowledge that our common humanity is more important. Not very complicated, but this is what I believe will determine the shape of this whole new era."

After he finished his prepared speech, Clinton sat down with the dean of the School of Journalism, Orville Schell, for an informal question and answer session. For the next 45 minutes he touched on subjects ranging from campaign finance reform to his book and his view of the media.

"Our perception is that there are basically two dominant elements [in the media]: the establishment press and the right wing press, and the right wing is the magnet that pulls the establishment press to the right," he said.

Clinton was unabashed in defending his fundraising efforts in a political climate that would otherwise have made him another Democratic victim of GOP’s ruthless campaign tactics.

"It is true that I refused to practice unilateral disarmament," he said. "I tried that and ended up with severe wounds."

And his description of "the cost of doing business" was not based on mere perception, he said.

"I’ve had great candid conversations with Newt Gingrich and other members of Congress privately, in which they basically said that "we have to incite people against you because you won. And so, since we can’t win the argument, we have to convince them you’re the devil.’"

The Democrats, Clinton said, have a very different approach to winning and losing, one that has proven very costly.

"We don’t necessarily hate people when they beat us because we’re so used to losing in life. We always like the contest. You get into the ring, you wrestle, someone wins, somebody loses, you wait till the next time and try again. But if you think you’re going to win every time, and you think you found the formula by which they can get even close, and then somebody turns out to win, you’ve got to go out and convince the people that something bad happened."

Yet even eight years of almost daily pounding by the media and the far right have not hardened Clinton or soured him to public service. It’s all a matter of how you respond to it, he said. "You just have to smile, go on, stand up for what you believe in. There’s still nothing better than public service. It’s the most rewarding thing I ever did. And if I had to do it all tomorrow again, I’d do it again in a heartbeat."

To that, Clinton received the biggest ovation of all.


75 posted on 03/18/2002 6:01:35 PM PST by vannrox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
I seem bit confused ... am I supposed to be satisfied with a bunch of *centrist* Democrats (read: phonies) building some sort of "working coalition"? A majority of Dems still means Daschle is Leader, (not as thought Trent Loot was any kind of real leader when he had the chance, IMMGAHO).
76 posted on 03/18/2002 6:02:48 PM PST by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
Washington; Murray (D). As much as I hate to say it, she'll be re-elected. She's as dumb as a bag of hammers, but the Republicans in this state can't find a candidate and can't run a campaign. Name me the last Republican from WA with any clout or respect?

I don't see Wyden from Oregon falling either. He, at least appears to have a central nervous system.
77 posted on 03/18/2002 6:07:37 PM PST by Rate_Determining_Step
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
Notice what we're up against...25% of the comments to the thread are flames against the GOP.......

I think most people here (on FR) are upset about the probability of CFR being signed and the continued neo-Keynesian economic policies in the current administration. I agree that we (Repubs) have to take back control or all is lost, but I want to see a more conservative direction if we do...

78 posted on 03/18/2002 6:08:22 PM PST by rohry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: fogarty
McCain is a weasel, that is why. He's been in Washington too long, and political-weaselness has rubbed off on him. He should gracefully retire.
79 posted on 03/18/2002 6:32:16 PM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
It seems that I am always the last poster on any particular thread...
80 posted on 03/18/2002 6:33:46 PM PST by rohry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 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