wondering about true republicans

[Paradise]

and how they may feel about this administration, and its cohorts in congress. any true republicans here or others who may have some insight?

[unblock]

1. loyalty is their biggest strength and weakness

all at the same time.

i think the winning angle is to convince republicans and right-independents alike that bush has let them down. not that 'left' is right, but that bush is not 'right' either. he promised 'conservative' and delivered reactionary.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. "True Republicans"...

Have no shame whatsoever. They only care about being in power - nothing more.

Now, if it's true conservatives you're asking about, a lot of them are really, really pissed off. Even a lot of Congressmen are pissed off and have let Rove hear it several times.

[ablbodyed]

3. I know a lot of republicans....

mostly women, mostly elderly, who despise *. See him, rightly, as antithetical to their long-held beliefs. It's the newer, younger thugs who revel in *'s meanness and hypocracy who will support him, no matter what. And when I mean no matter what, I am convinced that if they were to lose the election, or even fear that they might, but try to retain power, then these punks would do whatever they are told to do and enough of us will be killed so that the rest will be intimidated into acquiescence. And then the world has a VERY limited time left.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. I'm scared by that thought too

And I wouldn't put it past Bush to use the military against us to keep power either, more so than any president we've ever had.

[PATRICK]

8. Republican women

Here is the real split in GOP loyal households. Abortion, women's rights, Title IX just head the list that is the real cause of the Dems growing majority. Men will always grouse but cling to the dominance, but that "support" can get quite soft while the women who have left the generational GOP base are livid and committed.

The spoiler is the dumb Dem or "Independent" male phenomenon that has so offset this crushing blow to a GOP future.

Unfortunately, even with Bush, the Democratic party is still dealing with its own disaffection now decades long. But what is the strong issue for the male?

Is the attempt by both parties to smooth over the disaffection a parallel comedy? Or should the Dems really have a better chance of reaching men, who in this instance have surrendered to hysteria and irrationality by raw appeals to emotion?

You would think with the phony exploitation of incompetent Bush, a miserably uncharismatic rich kid, that we would have the best shot of actually burying the GOP into insignificance. But even by the most optimistic measures that is STILL not happening.

While this is worry number one perhaps for the DLC gurus, they have been as ineffectual as anyone in this curious alignment.

[tom_paine]

31. They'd better carry a big stick

The Busheviks are unlikely to try this so early in the game (though they have exceeded my expectations before on issues of lying, overt fraud, and Tyranny) because the feelings of the Old Republic are still so strong that too many would be against it.

But wait until the Mad Reign of Emperor George P. Caligula around 2030, when these "young punks" are now full-grown Eichmanns and their children are even more mruderously Free-Market Stalinist than they.

(plus, most everyone who can even remember the Old American Republic, what it was like and what it believed in, will be gone anyway and I cannot stress how important that is for the Totalitarians who wish to rule with Iron Boot on Neck that memory and history both die )

It is THOSE creatures who will serve as the final nails in the coffin of the American Experiment in democratic self-rule.

However, if it began tomorrow I would not be surprised. Prepare for the worsdt and hope for the best.

I just never imagined in my lifetime that "the worst case scenario" could ever even approach this bad!

Ah, for the Last Days of the Old Republic, when it was possible to naively believe "It could NEVER happen here."

<sigh> Of course it could. It may well be...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Republicans I know

fall into two camps. One believes that Clinton is evil incarnate and that we must do whatever we can to protect Israel-oh, and I should not be allowed to vote because I'm a liberal. I call these the whacko nut Republicans.

The other camp are people who are really concerned about how the Constitution has been eroded, the treasury looted, and the government size increased. They are voting Democrat this year, and are doing whatever they can to get people registered to vote against Bush.

In my neck of the woods, the number of Republicans in Camp Two far outnumber the whacko nuts.

[seabeyond]

6. my husband

brother father. father is digesting allhe is seeing and just giving pieces. we yell........my brother, all he has to do is see all rights taken and constitution messed with yet still he is hanging on.

my husband though, didnt take many months at all before he was having issue adn for three years has been assuring me thru all my rages bush will screw up and wont get in.

brother and husband could have gone edwards, both have issue with kerry, but ed is warming to kerry.

but they are all sad they are losing their party. just last night told ed what a mere decade your party was hijacked by the coalition, this is not the republican party you love. he said after reagan. he sees a small group has taken party. i remember clintons re election i was saying coalition you are just going to take the party down, americans wont go there, but they did

[Maeve]

7. I think you need to define your terms

The people who were Republicans under Ike or even Nixon are not the same as the neocons or the libertarians who have been so out-spoken the past twenty years under the Repub banner.

If you mean the folks who are fiscally responsible(often referring to themselves as "fically conservative") small-government types--they are realizing they've been had. But many don't pay enough attention to realize how badly...

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[terryg11]

10. you like large deficits?

and a new bureacratic department that is probably unnecessary?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NicoleM]

13. So if there is another terrorist attack

can we presume you will be voting Democratic, since it will be obvious then that the Republicans can't keep you safe?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NicoleM]

19. What if they are repeated?

Then who will you vote for?

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NicoleM]

22. If there is another attack,

history will have suggested that the Republicans presided over at least the biggest terrorist attack in US history, if not the two biggest. History suggests that the Clinton administration warned the Bush people about the the immediate threat posed by bin Laden. History suggests that the Bush people did absolutely nothing about it, even as the attacks were occurring.* History will have suggested that despite being in control of the executive and legislative branches, the Republicans were still unable to prevent further terrorist attacks.

Go ahead and vote for whomever you want, but if you're going to use history as your guide please make sure it's ACTUAL history and not just what Rushbo has told you.

*edit--I was wrong. They told John Ashcroft to stop flying commercial. I guess that's something.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NicoleM]

30. First of all,

you might want to check the URL on your browser. You're at DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND. This isn't CENTRIST UNDERGROUND or MIDDLEGROUND.

Second, your views are not a personal affront to mine. It's just that I'm right and you're wrong. :)

Three, if you have some historical facts that would show that we're safer from terrorism under Republicans than Democrats, please present them.

Four, I have no interest in having you banned. The only ban-worthy thing you've done that I can see is that you re-registered after having been banned once before. But I haven't alerted the mods on that and I don't plan to.

Finally, I don't think you've actually SAID anything about what Republicans think except that Republicans think they are better than Democrats. That's not terribly insightful. I could have figured that out all by my lonesome.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[terryg11]

14. wouldnt it have been more efficient to redo the already existing departmen

such as the FBI and CIA and the NSA since they already had the structure in place and this is their area? Also, how about actually training and funding the local law enforcement agencies to better deal with these threats and how to recognize them instead of just promising them more money tht never shows up?

So, you're confident we won't see another terrorist attack in the US? I hope you are right, I really do but I'm not so confident.

as far as previous admins failing in their constitutional mandate as you put it, I'll accpt that if W is willing to share some of the blame.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[terryg11]

24. when I say redo

It's more of an overhaul. There have been numerous congresspeople who have been complaining about the intelligence community for years (see Chuck Grassley) and as you've pointed out been some bad policies in place about how they operate. Creating a department that's main job is to act as a hub of info between different departments seems rather severe and costly.

stick around Beetlebug, no name calling.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[terryg11]

29. yawn

FBI and CIA are two very large departments that as 911 and some other things have proven need to be seriously fixed. If we are going to continue to rely on them for much of our federal law enforcing and intel then they need to be cured of what ails them. Why let them continue on as these huge, bureacratic beasts when they could possibly be streamlined and more effective?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NicoleM]

11. a "tolerant, conservative forum"?

Let us know when somebody starts one of those and we'll be right over.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[terryg11]

17. could I ask where?

I toed the middle of the road at FR and CU and got banned. I was keeping about as low key as you are now.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[terryg11]

25. I got a site for you

Understanding Politics is the name. It's not near as busy as this place but it's populated by mostly liberals but a few tough conservatives. Gotta give props to DU though. I don't agree with everything said here but theres a real wealth of information available.

[NicoleM]

18. Suggest a forum.

[Paradise]

26. grateful for your response...

will reply, tonight, after work.