Replies

Trent Lott personifies my dilemma on this issue. There is no one I would less like to see as Senate Majority Leader. Except Tom Daschle.

In the real world, those are my choices. I don't like that my alternative to Tom Daschle is Trent Lott. I think Trent Lott is a worthless, spineless, blow-dried empty suit, who -- if the Republicans do re-take the Senate -- will let Tom Daschle run the place anyway, just as he did before Jeffords switched sides. I cannot express enough contempt for Trent Lott in this family forum. However, does that mean I would rather have Tom Daschle instead, just for spite?

I had my bout with spite. I had it in 1992, and my reward was eight years of William Jefferson Clinton. Lots of us showed ol' man Bush just what we thought about 'read my lips.' Sumbitch can't keep a promise, we'll show him, we'll vote for Ross Perot.

Been there, done that, got the stained dress. Never again.

Thank you,

I've heard these rants all to often and they don' accomplish anything. people need to get off their buts and DO Something to help the party get back to its foundations, Not win the other parties elections for them.

When the Republicans take back the Senate, Lott has got to go. I've never agreed with anything more that you have intimated Nick. His allowing the other side to run the show was absolute pansiism at it's worst. The term spineless is actually a compliment to this shell of a man. Go Don Nickles.

"I had my bout with spite. I had it in 1992..."

The legacy of those "principled conservatives" who broke from the GOP in 1992 to stand by their convictions, will forever be known as the Clinton presidency.

Most are not as willing to admit it as you have...it takes a big man.

I had my bout with spite. I had it in 1992, and my reward was eight years of William Jefferson Clinton. Lots of us showed ol' man Bush just what we thought about 'read my lips.' Sumbitch can't keep a promise, we'll show him, we'll vote for Ross Perot. Been there, done that, got the stained dress. Never again.

And yet, obviously, the GOP hasn't learned the lesson. What on earth can we do to wake them up, if not leaving them to wallow in obscurity, their greatest nightmare? They surely haven't responded to anything else, except for the temptation of following the Left's lead in expanding Socialism in exchange for their personal 'job security'!

I had my bout with spite. I had it in 1992, and my reward was eight years of William Jefferson Clinton. Lots of us showed ol' man Bush just what we thought about 'read my lips.' Sumbitch can't keep a promise, we'll show him, we'll vote for Ross Perot.

Been there, done that, got the stained dress. Never again.

I think you drew the wrong conclusion.

Politicians are like dogs. Sometimes you have to be unpleasant, and accept unpleasant consequences yourself (like pooping on the rug), and roll up a magazine to impart the very basic message that you need to get across to them: "NO" really means "NO!"

Look at all the trouble Tennessee voters are having, educating their legislators about the unacceptability of a personal income tax. Look at what Lowell Weicker did in Connecticut -- a RINO deluxe -- and then accepted a prize from Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg for "political courage" for having done exactly the same thing, which was to ram an income tax down the People's throat.

I voted for Ross Perot. I wasn't totally stupid -- I knew that no way was Old Man Bush going to lose Texas -- but I'd seen his ward-heelers ram through his slate of RINO delegates in the precinct caucuses, the same way the silk stockings in the Louisiana Third had done to Ronald Reagan in district convention in 1976. No, these people do not respect Main Street. They don't respect anyone who doesn't have one hundred million dollars or the chairmanship of a Fortune 500 company.

And there are certain things we have to do, to make sure conservative concerns are heard, and that conservatives continue to be included on primary ballots, not bumped off the way Shrub has done with Texas conservatives on the State Board of Education, for example -- backing RINO's running against incumbent Republican conservatives in the primaries!

How about insisting on a little loyalty back, before you foreswear voting for a Ross Perot or a Pat Buchanan again?

And let's get down to cases: would the American people, knowing what they know about Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party, really vote for him again? How much do they know now about what Clinton really is, and how can that not transfer to every Dim who runs for high office again? People talk about how close Gore came -- after the academics modeled a Democratic walkover. Knowledgable political scientists tinkering with AI software had forward-modeled a seven-point Gore win......and he lost, and the difference between winning and losing was the character issue.

The whole Democratic Party is a character issue! And where is the Republican who is going to make that issue from now until 2004? In the Business Wing of the party? I don't think so -- "pragmatist" says it all, they will never back the "backbone issues" that make conservatives what they are.

I couldn't have said it better, except I didn't vote for RP, I kept the faith. But now I am not so sure. If there was ever a chance to wake up the sheeple, expose the slime that went on for 8 years GWB sure has the evidence. But does the J.D. do anything? Is any Repub going up against T.D. It really does look like the "Powerfull protect each other" ?

I learned a few months ago that a baby boom is hitting 18 over the next 5 years, who do you think has trained them over the last 12 years, and what party line is going to attract them?

I think we have let the Dems chip away without a fight, and exposure for so long that it will take a act of God to save us. Perhaps a case could be made that 9/11 was one, but will our now popular leader make anything of it? Not yet.

"I had my bout with spite. I had it in 1992, and my reward was eight years of William Jefferson Clinton. Lots of us showed ol' man Bush just what we thought about 'read my lips.' Sumbitch can't keep a promise, we'll show him, we'll vote for Ross Perot."

Do not despair....our numbers are growing and someday, someway we'll get to break out of our bonds and elect an alternative. Many Dems have left the party, yet can't become Reps. Many Reps have left the party, yet can't become Dems. Like Fox News, we'll end up in the majority in the not too distant future. We must keep pushing and refuse to accept the status quo!

To: redrock
Trent Lott personifies my dilemma on this issue. There is no one I would less like to see as Senate Majority Leader. Except Tom Daschle. In the real world, those are my choices. I don't like that my alternative to Tom Daschle is Trent Lott. I think Trent Lott is a worthless, spineless, blow-dried empty suit, who -- if the Republicans do re-take the Senate -- will let Tom Daschle run the place anyway, just as he did before Jeffords switched sides.

I cannot express enough contempt for Trent Lott in this family forum. However, does that mean I would rather have Tom Daschle instead, just for spite? I had my bout with spite.

I had it in 1992, and my reward was eight years of William Jefferson Clinton. Lots of us showed ol' man Bush just what we thought about 'read my lips.' Sumbitch can't keep a promise, we'll show him, we'll vote for Ross Perot.

Been there, done that, got the stained dress.
Never again.
# 18 by Nick Danger
*************************

So that's your answer, Nick Danger?
Give up your principles?

Bush Sr. barely lost, so Clinton is your fault?
Not so. Clinton won because Bush lied.

The Republican Party got the message.
Because of that message, we had the "Contract with America,"
and controlled both houses of Congress.

Then Newt Gingrich and his followers betrayed that Contract,
trying to avoid the titles of "mean-spirited" and "hateful."
They even allowed Clinton free rein in his treasonous activities.

Remember the projections that the Republicans
would gain about 20 seats in the Senate?
Instead, they lost their majority.
Why?

It wasn't because of third party opposition.
They lost because the Republicans
were as dis-honest as their Democratic opponents,
and thus lost the faith of their people.
They lied.

Why did our current President Bush win?
It wasn't because of his high qualifications.
Bush barely won,
because of what could be called "protest votes" against Clinton.

Gore lost because of his and Clinton's well-publicized lies.
Like the first Bush, his dishonesty cost him the Presidency.