A Bush Hater's Poll

"A Bush-haters poll"? this is disappointing.

Seems people who post frequently on FR in hate, trashing, or "disagreement" with Bush might like to review the choices posted.
Oddly, I have not seen anyone give a legit reason to support any choices they agree with to not support GW.

Hate? I can't tell you how depressing it is to have confirmed by this thread Jim Robinson's evidently sharing the girlie, catty, junior high approach to politics that is "hating" or "loving" candidates ... leaving no room for honest criticism.

Once upon a time, it was his now allegedly "sarcastic" comments re: the coke-snorting Bushes which set the pattern (or lowered the bar) of political criticism around here ... causing those who persisted to emulate him thus (where Bush is concerned, anyway) to be vilified or banned.

That is not to say you one can't be banned or vilified for simply remaining consistent to their personal convictions and obedient to Self-Evident Truth or failing to couch same always with a disclaimer that they commit no Hate Crime against the King thereby.

Any criticism of Bush or the administration, our foreign entanglements, the appeasement of communists, abridgment of our Constitutional rights, convergence with the essential objectives of militant, atheists whose organizing principle is Materialism as best achieved through Corporate Governance and the Environment and neglect of the only essential human right -- the right to Life -- is cause to be labeled a "Bush Hater" and therefore suspect as a subversive.

The title of this thread is utterly offensive to me. I cannot believe this place -- of all places -- has embraced absolutely the "politics of personal destruction" such that Reason or Logic, the application of History, Facts and Analyses counts for nothing and all must be framed in whether or not one is firmly esconced in the Cult of Personality or "hates" Bush. "With us or against us" ... no room for objective criticism. It breaks my heart.

I cannot speak to yours on whether or not anyone on this thread has given a "legit" reason to support the choices they make to agree or disagree with Bush. Because this "dirty" polls sickens me so, I have no wish to subject myself to reading this thread. I'm in tears as it is.

That said ... where do I stand?

I stand outside of my own and others' weak will, imperfect intellect and human failing: I stand with, and strive to remain faithful to Self Evident truths.

I believe it a crime the Constitution is "interpreted" by moral relativists who believe all depends on what your meaning of "Is" is rather than reconciling their "strict Constitutionalism" always with the letter of the Self-Evident truths enumerated in our Declaration.

Any man is the freedom to ignore or reject Self Evident truths ... taking the consequences of such folly, particularly if he harms another Recognized Human Being (or snail darter) in the process.

But any man or citizen who claims the universal human rights and liberties enumerated in the Declaration obligates himself to defend and remain obedient to the Self Evident truths from which his -- and every other human being's -- sanctity of life, dignity of being and stake in liberty flows.

I believe in the State and the Soul ...

What we tend to forget is that States are people. States are not houses of parliament or legislative measures or international congresses; they are human souls with a plan., Often the plan is the wrong one, and often the human souls are concerned more with material than spiritual ends, but so far as final purpose goes, the State's is the same as that of the individual and of the family.

The ideal State is the large-scale family; the family is people. People come before the States. States derive their original and their authority through the people whom the rule -- and so through families. The right to rule is from God -- but it comes through people. The first society is the family, not the State. The family is the perfect society in miniature; the State is (at best) the perfect family magnified. If every family were self-dependent, there would be no State: there would only be country m or town or district. But because families, in order to exist and develop, have to come to one another's assistance there have to be States.

The State is therefore the consequence, not the cause, of man's social nature. But, as so often happens in the affairs of mankind, the effect tends to develop at the expense of the cause: the State gradually begins to assume the rights of the family, overruling its original authority and even, sometimes, turning against its original purpose. So soon as a State proposes some end of its own, neglecting the well-being of its constituent elements or not listening to their claims in self-development, it reverses God's purpose and is unworthy of governing. This rules out Totalitarian States at once.

Thus, if States go wrong, morally, when they pursue a policy which is independent of the persons in it, statesmen go wrong, morally, when the subscribe to the party, programme overriding the individual need. That men in responsible positions should do this must sound very wicked indeed. Yet they are doing it every day -- in so-called Christian countries.

With their eyes open, but seeing only the good of the whole or fulfillment of the theory, statesmen and politicians are waiving away the inalienable rights of the single unit. This may seem very wicked but it should hardly seem very surprising: where no search is made for what is outside the present life, it is the inevitable consequence. Where the supernatural destiny of mankind is ignored, the natural rights which were designed toward the attainment of this end find no support.

Politics are intended to be the means of realising ethical principles. Such, anyway, was the original plan. Politics are meant to open the door to what theology and philosophy decide upon as a code of right behaviour. "This is the good life," says the thinker; "it leads to happiness and to God." "Very well," says the politician, "we must adopt it and extend it for the benefit of all." The assumption here is that the thinker is a Christian moralist, and the politician is an honest man. It is a bold assumption.

That politics have gone off the Christian standard is all to evident. In fact, having slid away from the ethics of the Gospel, politics now excuse themselves from observing any sort of ethics at all. At one time morality was not a private duty as it is now: it was a public standard. Public and private affairs were integrated; there was a unity. Today there is no such reflex check-up: whatever people do in their own houses as regards social relations is their affair; politics, whether national or international, are run on a basis of expediency.

Religion, for example, may not enter into the questions of public policy. "It isn't the slightest use applying evangelical principles in our dealings with those who are opposed to us," says the politician, "we wouldn't be understood." And the awful part of it is that this is true. Once one side refuses to play, all the others begin to cheat. What used to be at least a recognition of the spiritual realities has been replaced by exclusively material considerations. The only things which count for anything in international relations are power and threat and bribe. The idea of trust between nations is laughable.

Children growing up in the modern world may be excused if they imagine that patriotism's finest expression is the savage bravery of the hater. For them diplomacy is nothing more than the ability to outwit an opposite number by underhand means. Eventually it must come to this, that a nation's well-being is assessed by the degree to which it has been able to eliminate its rivals, whether in trade or in the field. It is the ugly story of the master race, the Herrenvolk.

In a world where peace is maintained only by balance of fear, where finance takes sharp practice for granted, where ideals in matters of sex are looked upon as a survival from the mistaken ages of piety, there is little room for the Christian conscience. No account is taken of the soul who is disgusted by the non-Christian and amoral evidences which appear in contemporary legislation, in art and literature, in the tolerance extended to such things as nudism and its literature, to salacious films, to plays and even broadcasts which are not only tendentious but positively subversive.

How -- to return again to the family which is after all the heart of the matter -- can young people learn to take their place in society if the idea of government looms larger than the idea of father and mother, if laws are conceived of as disciplines to be evaded, if money is taken as the final end and test of success, if happiness is identified with pleasures which can be bought, if love is seen as a thing of the senses, if religion is judged to be a suitable interest for those who have a taste for it? The way of life which modern civilisation has adopted makes no allowance for the yearning of the soul. How can it? By relegating it to the sacristy, it has virtually denied the existence of the soul.

Politics cannot be held entirely responsible -- any more than the cinema or the economic state of mankind or the two wars can be held responsible -- for the alienation of man from his spiritual inheritance, but it is indisputable that if politics took Christianity as a basis there would be a return to natural relations between societies, classes and peoples. In order to achieve this return, governments would have to plan in a Christian way, would have to think Christianity, would eve have to practice it in their private lives. Governments, again, are individuals. Governments are -- let us face it -- ourselves.

The State is our concern as much as it is the concern of politicians. If in the Body of Christ one member must supply what the other lacks, then we so-called religious people must pray our way, Christ's way, into the parliaments of the world. This does not necessarily mean that religiously minded men and women must force themselves to take an interest in politics: it means that politically-minded men and women -- indeed all men and women -- must force themselves to take an interest in religion.

So I have a real problem with George Bush. A problem that renders almost incidental in comparison all of my criticisms stemming out of some appreciation of history, intense respect for -- if not utter loathing of -- Former Soviets such as GRU's "Pootie-Poot" and close interest in watching us enable, facilitate and give our imprimatur to the objectives of militant atheist communism.

Thomas Jefferson once noted that the only firm basis of a nation's liberties is the ``conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are . . . the gift of God.'' By observing the bicentennial of our Bill of Rights as a Year of Thanksgiving for the Blessings of Liberty, we not only give honor where it is due but also reaffirm the moral and spiritual foundation on which this great Republic rests.
Our Nation's Founders were men of faith and conviction, and it was a biblically inspired view of man that led them to declare ``that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'' The ratification of our Bill of Rights in December 1791 signalled their determination to uphold in law these timeless words from our Declaration of Independence.

You see ... I agree with this Declaration of December 17, 1991 by the President's father, President George H. Bush.

But if all men are created equal, then the human lives created through artificial reproduction should enjoy the same sanctity of life as those created through Natural Human Sexual Reproduction. The "Excess" manufacture embryos are every bit as entitled to life as their siblings who were chosen for implantation in the womb that is their rightful home and allowed to reach full "Personhood" by clearing the birth canal on their own steam and without having a pair of scissors jammed up the back of their tender skull.

The fact that plenty of embryos had "already been killed" by the date of Bush's first prime-time televised address to the nation, in no way diminishes the crime against these individual lives and humanity at large that is sanctioning and legimitizing the manufacture of human life as a commodity: for sale as children and purposed destruction as part of "hopeful" research.

As with the current debate on human cloning, immoral alchemic pragmatists would have us believe that the "Intent" of their actions somehow transforms an inherently Evil Act. The cloning of human lives for purposed destruction being somehow different than the cloning of human life allowed to live past the blastocyst stage.

"They were destined for the trashcan anyway."

No human life is fit only for the trashcan simply because it is "excess" or "unwanted". It is exactly on this diabolical premise that rests the conceit we are doing some Good by making "best use" of expendable, unwanted human lives.

So that's the first part.

One might be tempted to think Bush evil (particularly given his gilding the address on ESCR with Holy Scripture from his "favorite philosopher" ... the Creator God who gifted us with inalienable rights, the Reason by which we perceive them and the Conscience by which we recognize them as universal and defend them always).

Others might want to give him the benefit of the doubt ... perhaps he doesn't understand the science that the individual begins and is complete at conception or has never read or understood the Declaration and therefore feels no obligation to defend the Self Evident truth that is: all men are created equal.

I don't believe either is the case.

On Nov. 21, 1999, on NBC’s "Meet the Press," then-candidate Bush affirmed the basic fact from which any discussion of this research must begin.
Tim Russert asked, "Do you believe life begins at conception?"
"I do," said Bush.
...Clinton’s proposed rules, the Washington Post reported, "forbid the use of federal funds to destroy embryos directly, but they permit federal research on stem cells taken from embryos by privately financed researchers."
The response from candidate Bush was emphatic. "The governor opposes federal funding for stem cell research that involves destroying a living human embryo," said campaign spokesman Ray Sullivan. But what of Clinton’s effort to finesse the issue by funding research only after the killing was done by private money? Reported the Post: "In Bush’s view, Sullivan said, that still amounts to federal support of embryo destruction."
In October, Bush reiterated this position in a written statement to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "Taxpayer funds," said Bush, "should not underwrite research that involves the destruction of live human embryos."
As late as May 18, Bush stood firmly by this position. "I oppose federal funding for stem cell research that involves destroying living human embryos," the President wrote in a letter to the Culture of Life Foundation.
Although Bush never published a succinct syllogism summarizing his argument, it is easy to infer what it was:

Human life begins at conception.
It is wrong to deliberately take an innocent human life.
Taxpayers, therefore, should not be forced by government to subsidize scientists who do research that begins with the deliberate destruction of innocent lives.

[End of Partial Transcript]

Bush Would End Stem Cell Research Involving Human Embryos
UPI Staff
September 22, 2000
If elected president, pro-life Texas Gov. George W. Bush would end stem cell research involving human embryos, an aide to the Republican presidential nominee said Friday.
The controversial practice was cleared last month for taxpayer funding by the National Institutes of Health.
"It's something we would take steps to remedy," a Bush campaign health policy adviser said, on condition of anonymity, as the candidate suggested an increase in NIH funding by $67 billion over 10 years. [Bush has doubled the NIH budget -- most of which is sent out the door to private reseachers of a sort that provide 'already been killed embryos' to the Government.]
The adviser said Bush's public stance against medical studies using tissue from unborn children would lead a Bush administration to cut off taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research, which the NIH approved in August by lifting a yearlong moratorium.
Stem cells, formed in humans and animals at the beginning of life, have the ability to produce a variety of specialized cells in the body, such as muscle cells or nerve cells. Scientists believe they can cultivate stem cells to produce healthy tissues to augment or replace ailing organs.
Pro-life organziations oppose stem cell research and have been promoting life-affirming alternatives that would advance scientific research but not at the expense of killing unborn children.
"Gov. Bush as a pro-life candidate does not support things that would be the potential taking of a life, so that's why embryonic (research) is problematic for us," the adviser said.
[End of Transcript] These transcripts, among others

Clearly -- if we may be counted upon to view Bush as a man who "says what he means and means what he says" his actions as President have spoken far louder than his words as Candidate and exposed him as either (1) A Liar or (2) a Weak Man who -- as with his capitulation on global warming -- does what he's told regardless the "Personal Convictions" he trots out during the campaign to win folks over.

Either way, he epitomizes the Achilles Heel of the "I'm personally opposed, BUT ... " Republican party.

In a two-party system where only the one party has litmus tests and can be counted on to faithfully vote by the "personal convictions" (however insane, deadly or irrational), the Stupid Party is the one who fails to do the same and seeks somehow to "co-exist" or "compromise" objective truth in order to "win".

They win nothing. They lose all. There is no particular point in having "personal convictions" to which you are not true.

So it's for that very reason -- his apparent ability to renege on his personal convictions, even one so criticial as the Right to Life -- that I do not place my faith in Bush and continue to criticize him based on his inability to act in comport with what he states are his beliefs.

And it's for that very reason -- his apparent ability to renege on his personal convictions, even one so criticial as the Right to Life -- that I believe Bush's chances for two terms are excellent.

Democrats are some of the most dimwitted folks on earth, of course. How else to explain their bitter "fight" to keep abortion Legal when Legal Abortion has been the linchpin of GOP population control policy since 1974? As if it weren't going to be forced on us.

But even if the press manages to make it appear this administration's actions, policies or alleged scandals somehow distinguish them from the Democrats, I see no reason intelligent Democrats with a view toward the substance of actions or policy won't find Bush appealing.

That has been the objective for a while, it seems ... to move this "Two-Party" system into some semblance of permanent bipartisanship. Their differences serving only to lever "The Will of the People" toward "demanding" whatever is in the state's best interest anyway based on some Lowest Common Denominator "tolerance" of each individual's atomistic reality ... anything remoting resembling a true personal conviction worth fighting for characterized as some kind of hate crime.

And ... to finish this little survey of all the simpleminded "Bush Haters" that clearly includes me for my consistent criticisms of Bush based on my personal convictions, my faith and my defense of the Declaration as guiding light of the Constitution ... I'd like to see a man of true conviction elected. A man who would never compromise objective truth, ignore his conscience or fail to remain faithful and obedient to the self evident truths embodied in our Declaration ... limiting his authority to a just patriarchalism in the family of man, not socialist parentalism of Conditioners who lord it over the homogenous, lowest-common-denominator collective whose Diversity is celebrated only to the extent it causes folks to insist they be judged by their color, sex, sexual orientation, sentience or stage in development or decay.

That's why I worked on the Keyes campaign and -- following my conscience -- voted Constitution Party.

I'm ever hopeful (a sin of omission not to be thus) but I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm optomistic that ever will happen again.

The President is out of step with the Red Zone on Illegal Aliens, and I believe a scan of this thread would bear that out.

Many of the folks who've mentioned it are people I haven't seen on the Illegal Alien threads. I'd like to see the President correct his course in this area, as I believe it would be a healthy development toward his re-election.

I agree and this is one issue that disappoints me. Sadly, it will probably take another attack on the same or larger scale as 9-11 to get the government's full attention and shed it's political correctness comforter before we see the illegal alien threat dealt with effectively.

"A Bush-haters poll"?

the title of this thread is inflammatory, jim. there are many of us who are disappointed with some actions/policies of the president and his administration. that does not mean that we "hate" him.

this is disappointing.

12

...now that people have an invitation by the owner of this site, to give CALM, RATIONAL and ADULT reasons why they do/do not and or would/would not support him now or in the future...it is strangely quiet. The reason for that is it is much easier to post emotion filled, scathing, thoughless barbs, than to sit and compose a constructive response.

I also thought it had been strangely quiet.

Of course I am for Bush in 2004 for two reasons.

First - I do believe that devine intervention helped us in 2000 to take back this country and get back on track. Why would I fail to support the man I believe He gave us for this time? I will support him until he turns from God which I hope will not happen. I feel very fortunate this man with his qualities was given to us.

Second - I like him. I like the man, his values, his personality traits and the fact that he is able to work with opposition and still move forward. We know we have opposition.

I don't always agree with a decision but I realize that he is very astute in the political games and not everything has to be done immediately. Sometimes items will be tabled and handled in a different way at a later time - as the ICC.
I realize that there are political consequences to some actions and that also there are ways to work around those consequences and still come to the same objective.

I trust this man and his team (with the possible exception of Colin Powell) as he has the values I have. So wonderful to realize that your president is the type man you would want at the helm and will do the best in his power. Mistakes made - yes and there will be more.

I don't know where anyone would get the idea he is a globalist when he has taken steps since he came in office to protect America - not the global community. He has let them know we will take care of America first. Kyoto, refusal to join the ICC, advising the U.N. we will determine who gets our aid - not them. IMHO he has shortcircuited all efforts to control us with the ICC, Kyoto
and the efforts to distribute foreign aid for us.

Conversely, if you believe President Bush should be re-elected, please state why.

President Bush should be re-elected should he opt to run for re-election. IMO, the other electable option would be the democrat candidate and I don't think that is what this country needs.

If President Bush is re-elected the more important thing at this stage is getting a larger contingent of Congressional critters that favor less government and reduced spending. The Senate can cause major legislative problems because of their rules, so just a minor GOP majority isn't that productive.

For that reason, I say HE MUST GO!!!!!!

To be replaced WITH...........?

Dog, I make a serious assessment of the mettle and honesty of the man. Then, I let him do his job.

The guys who are sitting with their checklists of priorities are frauds. They were never Bush supporters. They're looking for a disappointment so they can withdraw from the system.

Hey, it's July! Where are the "Real Conservatives" Where's the Brigader Party? The grass roots discontent? Nice try.

A post as long as #502 is wasted on me and probably many other readers. All that hard work and I still have no idea where you stand.

1 and 4

However, he is better than most others currently 'in the running.'

So, re-elect him for 2004 and hope he picks Steve Largent as his running mate.

Then have Largent for President in 2008.

Can we start a Largent for VP 2004 campaign?

Jim, do you like Largent?

Please list the numbers that best match the reasons you don't like Bush (or state other reasons if not on the list) and state whether you believe that President Bush should be defeated even if it means installing a Democrat in the Whitehouse.

Answers: #1, #4 & #8.

Arguments for #1- Bush is clearly not conservative enough. A principled conservative would never have allowed tariffs on steel and lumber for purely political reasons. A principled conservative would not have signed Campaign Finance Reform. A principled conservative would not have added hundreds of complexities to the tax code for an insignificant tax reduction that is back-end loaded and subject to repeal before becoming effective. This is especially true when the FAIR Tax and FLAT Tax are real reforms with meaningful reductions in the complexities of the tax code. A principled conservative would not have allowed adding to the bloated education budget and would have supported ending the department of education, not expanding it. Anyone who believes Bush does not see government as the solution to some of our problems is not paying attention.

Arguments for #4- Airport security was federalized. The administration is in the forefront for funding Amtrak. Which government agency or what part of the federal budget has disappeared or gotten smaller under Bush? Can anybody name even one that has gotten smaller?

Arguments for #8- I can't believe you even asked such an absurd question? Surely you are being sarcastic? Bush is bending over backward to be a bigger immigration pimp than the Democrats.

Conversely, if you believe President Bush should be re-elected, please state why.

Bush should not have gotten the Republican nomination. Keyes or Forbes or better yet some combination of Forbes/Keyes or Keyes/Forbes would have been more representative of the issues that Republicans should be supporting. Even better would have been the election of Harry Browne or Phillips. Conservatives will eventually realize that playing "party" politics has been a losing strategy because they have been playing the game in the wrong fashion. It doesn't take an Einstein to discern that defeating Democrats is the key to dismantling socialism in the US. For years, I thought that only the Republican Party can defeat Democrats. Without anyother thought or consideration of other factors, I uniformly pulled the straight Republican lever. We made enormous progress under Reagan, who set the stage for the 1994 Republican Revolution in Congress. But the Republican leadership collapsed in a moral failure, and we returned to our decline into socialism, even under Republican control. Remaining in office became more important to Republicans than doing the right thing. Conservatives must replace the Republicans who have failed in advancing the conservative agenda or throw the Republicans out completely in favor of other political parties that are actually pushing conservative platforms. I think this is the only way to get the attention of Republican office holders and would-be Republican candidates. If they can take the conservative vote for granted because there is simply no where else to go, then they are free to do what is important to them. And it is clearly more important to them to remain in office over doing the right thing. Since they think they can take the conservative vote for granted, they campaign and vote to the center or worse to the left. Newt got off to a great start. It was not the Democrats who derailed Newt and the other conservative Republican leaders, it was Newt's own moral failure and the Republicans who ran away from him so that the scandal didn't stick to them. Worse the replacements the Republicans chose for Newt had the same flaws. Character and Principles matter. Current Republicans have flunked both the conservative leadership and the character/principles tests. It is time for a "party" cleansing or a whole new conservative party. Let the Republicans come ride on our train for a while. We tried theirs and they derailed us in failure.

Please state who you would like to see win the Presidency in 2004 and whether or not you believe he/she has a chance of winning.

The stock market is in the process of a sustained slow motion crash. The economy is not going to recover quickly and the market is not going to enter a new bull market even if the current bear ends soon in capitulation. Bush is not going to win re-election in spite of his current popularity. The economy matters and the Democrats who are really to blame for our current problems will, with the help of the media, successfully blame the economic problems on Bush while setting up arguments for Gore to bring back the good times of the nineties, the so-called "new economy"-the real culprit of our current problems. To add to Bush's re-election challenge, the terrorists are sure to take an interest in defeating Bush. No matter what happens between now and 2004 with regard to terrorism, Bush will now be blamed for any attacks, large or small. And if Bush is renominated, you can bank on major attempts for additional attacks. No matter how many are thwarted, it will only take one successful attack for a lot of current supporters to turn on Bush in spite of the fact that he seems to be doing a reasonable job in the War Aganist Terrorism (WAT) that is occurring outside the US. I disagree strongly with his efforts on many of the domestic features of his WAT. Will any current Republican politician be able to win in 2004 if we are in the midst of a depression as now seems likely? Some are now saying depression is inevitable.

2004 is shaping up to be a year either for the Democrats, a third party year or a year for someone outside the normal political spectrum. Anyone who has or now reads my posts knows that I think the US is in grave danger of following the path traveled by the Soviet Union. The red-blue map provided proof that there are significant geo-political fault lines present in the United States that make secession of relatively homgenous geo-political regions feasible. Unless we reverse the socialism of Medicare and Social Security within this decade, the United States as a nation is not financially viable. I think the best shot Republicans have is Rush Limbaugh. There are two routes to the Whitehouse for Rush. Cheney is certainly not going to run in 2008. There are already trial balloons being floated for Cheney's successor to be Bush's running mate in 2004. This would certainly be the simplest, but may not be the best. First, Bush is likely to lose in 2004 making Rush run in 2008 as never having won an election. Second, it delays correction for four years and forces Rush to run against an incumbent.

At this point, I am not going to go into detail as to why Rush is the obvious conservative choice nor am I going to argue why other conservative choices would not be equally as satisfactory, and I am sure there are some who will argue that others are better. At the moment, Simon in California could defeat Davis. If that pans out, then clearly Simon could be an acceptable choice.

FreeRepublic is the conservative gathering place. We are the grass roots of We the People. The off year elections are going to set the stage for what happens next in the United States. Most Freepers want to play a significant role in this year's elections and many recognize that if we get our act together and serve as a unifying force for conservatives, that we can not only play a significant role, it could be within our reach to actually control the outcome of the elections in November.

Jim Robinson, as the founder and as the Captain of the Ship, you have so far steered us admirably. YOU and FreeRepublic played an integral and arguably the key role leading up to the impeachment of Clinton. FreeRepublic provided the only media source where Americans could actually discover that there was any sentiment to Impeach. Perhaps equally or more important, this was the only place in America that members of the House could discover that the American people felt that Clinton should be impeached.

You steered FreeRepublic through the Compost/Lost Angles attempts to silence free speech and their efforts to subvert the Constitution. I claim to be an agnostic, but it is very hard to refute that there is a Divine Providence who watched over and guided the Founders of this great nation. And through immense trials and tribulations, our first hundred and fifty years shows evidence indicating that the Divine Providence was still watching over us. Arguably, a case could be made that the same Divine Providence has been guiding the hand of FreeRepublic. Our country needs new leadership and guidance. We are on the wrong road and the present leadership is not focused on changing course. The Republican Party is more focused on winning re-election than on doing what is right. Unless our country changes courses quickly, we are going to fall off a financial cliff from which economic recovery is not possible.

Jim Robinson, your posting of this questionaire may have been out of frustration, but shows great courage. FreeRepublic is looking to you for direction and leadership. I respect your loyalty and allegiance to the Republican Party. You are the author of FreeRepubic's mission statement. The Republican Party has failed to lead the country back to the Constitution. In some cases they no longer make any pretenses and have advanced the socialists' attack on the Constitution. Conservatives have not abandoned the Republican Party. The Republicans have abandoned conservatism. It is time to make some changes.

Here are some things we should consider:

Before completely abandoning the Republican Party, conservatives should make one more serious effort to lead Republicans back into the conservative fold. Here is one way.
FreeRepublic can be instrumental in guiding Republicans to getting behind a conservative leader that can win and follow through. Can anyone do it better or more determinedly than Rush?
Excellence in Golf can fund Rush's Presidential primary and campaign without any outside campaign contributions. Rush could be the first President since the Founders with no campaign or political obligations to anyone or any party.
Fifteen second sound bites seem to be the only evidence that most Americans use to make decisions, no matter how important. FreeRepublic should take some time now to sort through our options, format a strategy, and then try get behind a strategy as a group. A unified forum focused on a strategy, even one with multiple moving parts, could be a formidable force for getting Republicans back on track.
If we fail to get the Republicans back into the conservative fold, then we should set our sights on other conservative political parties.
Incrementalism has been the failed strategy for seventy years. It is time to stop repeating the same mistakes.

Jim Robinson, you can expedite the debate. You may even be able to guide it to a destination. Choose carefully and wisely. Even with perfect choices and perfect execution, the clock is running out and the deck is already stacked against us. Rush and Excellence in Golf could be the Ace in the hole conservatives need. Or could they simply be part of the plan of Divine Providence?

You can go. The Republican Party has no place for ideologues like you.

Well, as long as you ask, #6, #8 and #1, in that order.

Jim, do you like Largent?

I don't want to open old wounds but Jim benched Steve Largent in lieu of Mike Quick and Tim Brown. 22 TDs yeah for the boys ... but Largent's hair is perfect

Hmm, he said write "knee jerk", not plain-old jerk.... lol.

I think the best shot Republicans have is Rush Limbaugh.

Boy, you do feel that things are grim! I don't think things will ever get that bad. I think our chances in November are reasonably good.

Hate? I can't tell you how depressing it is blah blah blah

*yawn*

"hate, trashing, or "disagreement""

Do you see the "or" in there? What do you think that means?

Funny you picked out that one and not the others, "trashing" or "disagreement". Why? Conscience?