[Jim Robinson]

Well, I don't care what you do in your own state, that's your business. But when too many people take that attitude at the national level, then we end up with a President Clinton. Drive out Bush (who will be running for reelection in '04, barring an act of God) and we end up with president Gore or, God forbid, President Clinton II. Now it is my business. I do not believe the Republic can survive another Clinton/Gore Whitehouse. This one is do or die (IMHO). I do not see any practical alternative at this point.

[Twodees]

The way our form of government is designed to work, who we elect from our states is supposed to be of more importance than who the president is. But, the way the system is subverted now, it's very important who gets to be president. That's why I don't see allowing the GOP to get by with running liberals like Dole and Wobbly.

In your opinion, is it more the fault of the voters that Clinton was inflicted on us twice or the fault of the GOP for running two terrible candidates back to back? If the office of president has been given such undue importance, and only two parties are allowed access to the electoral process, then the party I choose is going to have to have some principles.

[rintense]

Jim, you are making far too much sense. What's wrong with you?

[Charlotte Corday]

I do not believe the Republic can survive another Clinton/Gore Whitehouse

Jim:

You've named the two Democrats who would motivate all Freepers and all conservatives to vote to re-elect GWB.

(Including all three members of the Corday household, all increasingly despondent about the paralysis in Bush's veto hand)

But if the Democrats nominate someone who does not have the Gore/Hillary ethical baggage, will all conservatives still crawl across the broken glass?

Or will the GOP discover it has sold its principles for naught?

BTW you might want to speak to the moderator who has pulled the "Cleaning Lady" graphic. He or she could benefit greatly from a new dermatological process known as "skin thickening"....