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

To: risk
It's just like a Democrat to refuse to allow unformalized bureaucratic solutions to problems.

Yeah, but only if the solution helps an opposition candidate. If a Democrat were adversely affected, the situation would be different. Sort of like if a Democratic candidate were polling badly, and the party decided to replace him long after the deadline for doing this had passed. It becomes a "voting rights" issue if a Democrat is affected, and "too bad, that's the law" if it's a Republican.

7 posted on 08/30/2003 3:53:13 AM PDT by Fresh Wind (Never forget: CLINTON PARDONED TERRORISTS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Fresh Wind
"If a Democrat were adversely affected, the situation would be different. "

That is precisely why we can never affort to have Democrats elected to anything. Vote for the candidate with the greatest possibility of defeating the strongest Democrat.

Someday that may allow voting for third party kooks, but today it means voting for strong Republicans, RINO's or whatever. In the current California race, voting for anyone other than Arnold means helping elect a Democrat.

37 posted on 08/30/2003 5:54:56 AM PDT by Buffalo Head (Illigitimi non carborundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

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