Sorry we have been away for so long; we have been in a deep, deep battle of depression due to the state of the Hillary for President campaign. :(
So it has been a pathetic and depressing couple of days for us. But then we were humored after reading our beloved Watertown Daily Times this evening. We saw that Fred Brabant dropped out of his bid for the 118th NYS Assembly district AFTER ONLY 2 DAYS of campaigning!!! Now we have our lush Cantwell ready to rumble along the river district (according to Double D all he has is looks; but hey it does the trick for Obama, right?).
I do think that it is a pretty bad sign that the GOP's bench is so limited/fractured that one of its so-called best candidates only lasts two days and is unable to recruit any volunteers to get petition signatures? And why in the world did Button drop out so quickly?
It is called pathetic leadership. We need someone who knows how to get things done for the North Country. Maybe that someone is Bobby Cantwell... I guess we will have to find out.
Brabant abandons Assembly attempt
LACK OF SUPPORT: Contractor says party 'eliminated democracy'
By JUDE SEYMOUR
TIMES STAFF WRITER
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2008
Frederick A. Brabant, Clayton, said a lack of party support has convinced him to abandon a run for the 118th Assembly District seat just two days after entering the race.
Mr. Brabant, a self-employed contractor, said he received no help after asking Jefferson County Republicans at a party meeting Monday to circulate petitions on his behalf.
"I hit a wall," he said. "They have this notion that they don't want a primary. And it has eliminated democracy."
Sandra L. Corey, county Republican chairwoman, said she told Mr. Brabant just the opposite. She remembered telling the candidate: "If we're together with one candidate, we'll be stronger ahead. But I told him I would never stand in anyone's way if they wanted to do a primary."
Mrs. Corey said Mr. Brabant was a victim of bad timing Monday. The chairwoman said the candidate tried to recruit volunteers after losing the committee's endorsement to Robert W. "Bobby" Cantwell III, Clayton.
Both candidates were given a chance to speak before the endorsement process began, Mrs. Corey said.
Now out of the race, Mr. Brabant said he will support Mr. Cantwell.
"I have nothing but praise for the man," Mr. Brabant said. "Bobby and I are friends. Our ideas are much the same."
Mr. Cantwell said he was excited about the endorsement Monday from Jefferson County Republicans.
"It's an honor and it's humbling to have their support," he said Tuesday morning.
He received an endorsement Tuesday afternoon from the St. Lawrence County Republican Party. Chairwoman Janet L. Kelly polled town GOP leaders Tuesday and reached an informal consensus. The committee will not meet again until September. Members met Thursday but delayed their endorsement because Canton town Supervisor David T. Button was considering a bid. He withdrew Monday.
"I'd love to have had a candidate from St. Lawrence County, but I think that now that we have one from Jefferson County, we've got to get behind him," Ms. Kelly said. "He's got a lot of fire in him."
Jefferson County Legislator Addie J. Russell, Theresa, is the Democratic candidate. Donald J. Lucas, Massena, is pursuing the Working Families Party line and intends to run as an independent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
"One of the best candidates'? Please. Brabant screwed himself, didn't even go through proper channels to get his petitions or committe ready, and wasn't the slightest bit prepared. Basing your platform on 'the fat kids he saw on State Street' isn't a winning plan. Nice enough guy, but a train-wreck waiting to happen on the campaign trail when the other side goes a-diggin'.
Button was a no-go before Cantwell even went up north. The Albany RACC probably even knew that.
The GOP is pretty Dang Weak all over the country. It has forsaken its conservative values for the supposed gain of votes.
St. Law. County is a liberal haven for democrats. We are totally overrun. There is so much power in high places that a republican running as one, and not in disguise is forced out by extortion or what ever other power that might be yielded.
The question for the Republican party is essentially this. Is their platform going to return to its conservative tenets, or is it going to try to continue to do the proverbial dance between conservative orthodoxy and Liberal fanaticism.
The country as a whole is moving liberal, the choices at hand are to try to educate those of their error in thinking or try to retain power by promoting some kind of pseudo- republican tenets which will inevitably lead to failure. The reason why, is the most liberal will win, and that is the Democrats hands down!
Remember what the wise orator said, when women were given the right to vote, BIG GOVERNMENT BEGAN! No Big Government, no feminism and so there is the end of the story.
jeffrey,
i would submit that the republican party is becoming unpopular because of conservatism, and that conservatism is (becoming, at least) unpopular because it doesn't work. look, the gop had the keys to the kingdom in washington for six whole years, backed in full by the conservative intellectual movement (at least until sometime in bush's second term when too much was obviously wrong for everyone to sustain the denial), and look where it's gotten us! how can a movement founded on the idea that government doesn't work make government work?
and as for your "wise orator": your misogyny is utterly contemptible. you should be ashamed.
To Anonymous:
To insinuate that conservatism "doesn't work" and to call the last 6 years of the Bush presidency as your proof, only shows you have not a clue as to what "conservatism" really is. Bush and the republican party backing him is nothing more than an example of what I said in my first post. They are pseudo-conservatives! That means "false" to those of you on the left coast.
Ronald Reagan was the last president our country had which even approximated true conservatism and he was "handcuffed" greatly by the liberal progressive congress he governed with. It isn't conservatism that has been "failing" it is the people who "purport" to be such, claiming they are governing under such principle when in fact they are nothing more than "liberals" in "conservative" clothing.
AS to you comment about my "misogynistic" comment. It again shows you can't present an argument to defend against my accusation, so you resort to character assassination. I stated facts, there was nothing in them that stated I "hated" anybody or anything, just the facts mam, just the facts. I'm not by far the only writer to draw the connection between big government and the feminist movement, and doing so in no way says the the writer is a "hater" of woman. As to our society and the feminist's in it presenting a position of 'hatred" = Androgyny. All one has to do is set down in front of the television for a few moments, to be presented with a constant position of how males are, dumb,incontinent,and definitely not worthy of any position of leadership. You may rest assured I'm not a misogynist but I certainly do despise "androgyny's".
The reason things are in the state of affairs they are today is because of the grand scale 'emasculation" of our countries males. The blame for that, lies squarely with, 'THE MALES'.
jeffrey,
you wrote, "Remember what the wise orator said, when women were given the right to vote, BIG GOVERNMENT BEGAN!" maybe you're no misogynist, but that's misogyny. sorry, but that's what the word means. and i maintain that it's contemptible.
regarding conservatism, i think you overlooked a key point in my previous comment (which perhaps i should have made more forcefully): namely, that bush and the republicans had the full backing of the conservative movement. where were the howls of conservative dismay leading up to the 2004 election? everything was already on the table by then, yet aside from andrew sullivan, all i heard were crickets chirping in the field. your comment reminds me of the old communists who used to say that communism never failed because it had never actually been tried. sorry, but conservatism is as conservatism does.
Dear Anonymous,
I don't know how I can make it more clear to you! It is a "Historical Fact", the beginning of big government and women having the right to vote were "contemporaneous". Any serious history student can quickly discover through a Wiki or Britannica study this is a 'FACT'.
How in the world you can claim that this is a "misogynist" statement only uncovers your agenda as one of being "philosophical" vs. "factual".
What are we as intelligent individuals suppose to do, refrain from making factual statements because we will be labeled by some as being holders of the view of that particular statement. Does a statement regarding the civil rights of blacks and a government action concerning it, make me a Racist?
This form of deduction as I said, is nothing more than the same old liberal approach. If you don't like the message, kill the messenger.
Regarding conservatism, you apparently did not understand or speak to my position. Simply stated, I was trying to make you aware, George Bush and his presidency is by no means any test of "Conservatism". Therefore your position, I was arguing the same strain as the communist is again false.
If you really want to evaluate Liberalism vs. Conservatism, your going to need to stop looking at it from so much of a political perspective and look at it from a perspective of a social one.
Put George Bush aside, if you can, and for that matter Bill Clinton or any other Politico's of the past.
Use just a very small social period of time, say from 1900 to the present. I really doubt anybody would disagree out country's moray's are discernibly more liberal today than then. So if the trend has been from a conservative to a more liberal position, relatively speaking of course. Would it not be a fair question to ask! Are we societally better off today, than we were then? I'm not talking I-pod's here I'm talking family units, children's respect for parents, these kinds of things. Please don't give me the technology spiel! I know we are swimming in new technology, and I will suggest it hasn't improved our social structure.
With this said, my point lies, in time we have been drifting from a conservative existence to a more liberal one. The question before us is, should we pick up the pace and proceed into the future with even greater liberal advancement, or should we look back at the past and consider the virtue of that reality.
I agree with your statement, 'conservatism is as conservatism does. That is precisely why we are in the dilemma we are in. Conservatism has been diluting and liberalism has been strengthening. It is conservatism's lack of influence in our culture, that is causing the problems that you erroneously try to blame on it.
As a side note, it was interesting you didn't have any factual disagreement with my position, that we live in an ANDROGYNOUS period of time, not a misogynous one, as you try to present.
Have a great day.
jeffrey,
i disagree with most of what you wrote, but to keep the length of this from spiraling out of control, i'll try to focus just on the points i think are most important.
first, let me explain a bit why i think your comment is misogynistic. you wrote, "... when women were given the right to vote, BIG GOVERNMENT BEGAN!" in your view, what did women's suffrage have to do with the onset of "big government" (and incidentally, when do you think big government began?)? the only reasonable way i see to understand what you wrote is that you're asserting some kind of causal relationship between women's suffrage and "big government"; otherwise, why would you mention it at all? your comment had nothing to do with women's suffrage before that point; and surely there were many, many other events contemporaneous to the rise of "big government". i think it's completely despicable to blame "big government" on women being able to vote. if that wasn't your intent, then i'd be heartened by a clarification.
second, of course bush's presidency is a test of conservatism! you certainly seem to feel that bush has betrayed what "true" conservatism is about. my point is that any governing philosophy or ideology must be judged by its performance in practice. and there was a perfect storm of conservative dominance in washington in the first six years of bush's presidency. that's as good a chance as you'll ever actually get: if conservatism couldn't be made to work then, then it never will be. it is a fundamentally flawed ideology, in my opinion.
third, why on earth would you only look at liberalism vs. conservatism from the perspective of social issues? maybe social issues are the ones that matter the most to you, but there's a lot more to it than that: like the economy, foreign policy, etc. but fine, if you want to ask if we're societally better off today than a hundred years ago, i say a resounding yes! it's not even close. do you honestly think otherwise? i happen to really like modernity.
fourth, since you're practically begging me here, i think you're completely wrong to say that we live in an androgynous time. i wouldn't characterize it as a misogynous time either, but i think males and male-ness still unquestionably dominate the culture. today's state of affairs is due to emasculation of males in our country?! please. bush's cocksure, macho man-cowboy attitude is exactly the sort of thinking that got us into this mess in iraq.
how long was it that the chief of police lasted??? wasn't he aiming for the dems or some such thing such?
Dear Anonymous,
I think if you examine your responses,it is you that is adding to the spiraling length of discourse. I too will try for brevity.
First,I did not say it was my view, the suffrage movement was responsible for BIG GOVERNMENT! That is just your response in defense. I just said it was a statistical fact, easily researched. Leaving the conclusion to the researcher. As to other events that might have been contemporaneous with that period, I'm not aware of any which reach the magnitude of Suffrage. If you have any, shoot!
Second, as I have previously stated, Bush's era is not a "test" of conservatism. It is the result of conservatism diluted to the point of failure. Kind of like a baseball game, insisting one team play with out mitts. Then saying see that team isn't any good.
Third, Social issues are what controls your culture. They trump everything else, and are the controlling factor in economics as well as foreign policy. If you really think we are socially better off than prior to Big Government, you need to read, "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire". I DO think otherwise, and not I but millions in our country recognize or social decay. What in the world, and where do you get that from, that conservatism means we must all return to living technologically as the Amish? Absurd rationalization!
Fourth, I didn't beg you to do anything, I just pointed out your lack of response! As is the case with your "thinking" we are not in a androgynous period. You state your feelings, but exhibit no proof to support your "thinking", contrary to my position. I'm not sure that a person with a "cock-sure", "macho man-boy cowboy", qualifies as a person with CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY, whether is be male or female.
From your responses it is evident your discussion has little to do with the conservatism vs. liberalism debate. It is just the typical HATE BUSH RANT! To rationally evaluate this point, you need to open the corridors of your mind and time frame, way beyond BUSH!
So unless your are able to open your mind to a larger scope, we're talking about two different things which make our discussion MUTE and useless.
I have not a clue, concerning your "chief of Police" post. Seems to have something to do with the ongoing "hate Bush" rhetoric.
Have a great day!
P.S.
Where are all the others in this blog, seemingly silent on a demonstrably huge subject.
I'm here. And there is no question that feminism is well on the way to destroying this country.
Dear DJC,
I am uninformed as to how you have come to the conclusion which you have, but I will just say; If feminism is evaluated on a + or - scale over its history. It has been a + for women, in their eyes at least. And it has been a - - - for men, families, and country.
And then, there is another side to this equation which hasn't even been brought to the discussion table. That being, the Christian religion, and its total adultery with the feminist's and a complete Divorce from the "black and white" clear and concise wording of the book, they call their BIBLE!
And to bring this discusion full circle, the reason the Republican party is in peril, is because of its interest in garnering votes instead of standing strong for principles, tried and true. Amen
Thanks for your input though DJC, I know there are many more who share your view, but don't seem to be as willing to voice their opinions as vocally as their Liberal counterparts.
Jeffrey
dear jeffrey,
i find the second paragraph of your latest comment confusing. so let me ask you directly: do you believe women's suffrage led to "big government"? there's also a question from my last comment that you didn't answer (which i find completely understandable, given the scope our discussion has attained), and i think it might be useful, so let me ask it again: what do you consider to be the time that "big government" began? was it the institution of the federal income tax? the new deal? was it only in the 60s that it got really big? something before all of these? i'm very skeptical that i'll end up agreeing with your claim that women's suffrage was the event of greatest magnitude contemporaneous to the rise of big government, but to discuss this in any kind of a thoughtful way, i think we'd do well to have some dates thrown out there.
we seem to have a serious disagreement about what "conservatism" means. so i'd be very interested to hear you explain the ways in which bush and the modern republican party have transgressed conservatism. and i'm also interested to know who you consider the real conservatives to be. you've mentioned reagan before -- are there any true modern-day conservatives? or has the whole movement betrayed itself? i have to say, from where i sit, if bush's version is the "diluted" version of conservatism, then perish the thought of the full-strength stuff.
i completely disagree that social issues trump everything else. i think reality is way too complicated to make any kind of sweeping statements like that. on the other hand, i doubt either of us will be able to persuade the other on this point -- it strikes me as the kind of thing people can go back and forth over for hours without getting anywhere at all. but anyway, yes, i absolutely think we're socially better off than 100 years ago. people have much more freedom now than then. i agree that there are millions of americans who would like to turn back the clock, but i believe there are millions more on my side. why else is the republican party running scared from its social-conservative wing? i submit it's because elected republicans want to keep their jobs. but if you want to keep nominating hard-core social conservatives to every office in sight, please don't let me get in the way.
where on earth did you get the idea that i think conservatism means living technologically like the amish? i assure you, the absurd rationalization belongs not to me. maybe it's what i mean by modernity? i don't mean anything having to do with technology. i mean that, on the whole, i like modern-day social values, and i think they're getting better.
it's true that i didn't cite anything before in support of the claim that our society is still a very patriarchal one. so let me now indulge you. is it men who earn less for doing the same work? no, it's women. is it men who make up something like 17% of congress? no, it's women. is it men whom society expects to assume the primary child-raising duties, even if they're working? no, it's women. and i could go on, but this comment is already long enough as it is.
one could certainly argue that bush's cocksure, hyper-masculine attitude is unconversative -- i'd be happy to hear your thoughts on that point. though i do feel that conservatism has traditionally been associated maleness and masculinity.
it's true that i think bush has been a terrible, disastrous president, but my real ire is saved for conservatism itself, or at least for the many excesses of its attendant movement. your assertion that my comments have had nothing to do with conservatism is hogwash. why else would i have written something like "how can a movement founded on the idea that government doesn't work make government work?"
i didn't write the "chief of police" post -- apparently there's another lowercase avenger running around these parts. and that comment is plainly referring to the original post, not to bush. at another point in your comment, you wrote, "you need to open the corridors of your mind and time frame, way beyond BUSH!" -- ah, the irony!
i hope you have an excellent day too!
Blame the women all you want but it was Franklin Roosevelt, his cronies and ignorant sheep who elected him FOUR TIMES that created big goverment. The social activists (a nice name for Socialists and Kennedys) wanted the government to fix everything - the Depression, poverty, the dust bowl and just about anything else. It's the stuff the Clintons and their lefty Hollywood buddies are stil touting today.
And Obama will be even worse.
So, ...Good Old Boys, how about you give up your Socialist Security and Medicare/Medicaid and get back to realy conservative American principles where governments.
dear jeffrey,
i think feminism has been overwhelmingly beneficial not just to our country, but to every country in the world where it has gained influence. do you believe in women's equality? if you do, then you're a feminist. i'm a proud feminist too.
That is the opposite of reality.
Economically, feminism and the Women's Rights campaign have done nothing but good for this country. Since women began working and voting, our country has grown tremendously. If big government means more educated voters, then bring it on.
Common sense alone tells us that as the number of workers increases, so do the capabilities of the industry. Women are no longer given two options: the home or the school. We can now become engineers, scientists, doctors, pharmacists, and lawyers (just to name a few). Women can even create their own jobs and jobs for others. Boy, has the world changed.
Although you may feel that men were displaced in this movement and families suffer when both parents work, this is a delicate social compromise and there are many other justifiable reasons why families have "lost" in the past couple decades.
It is still possible for a family to be close-knit and support their children to adulthood when Mom's at work during the day. My own parents managed this while they both worked full time.
I see little difference in the dedication of time to raising a family between now and when Mom & Dad had to work on the farm together to keep things working. Do you think Mom could stop tending the cows and planting just because Junior wants some cookies? Although technology and society has changed dramatically, a little bit of self-sufficiency is still essential to a developing child.
Not only that, but women who have chosen their profession and use their right to vote are part of the greatest strength of this country. Now both parents can show their children the opportunities our great country offers, whether it be to raise a family of their own as a stay-at-home Mom or become a CEO of a company.
Wow, there's no shortage of the clueless.
dear djc,
um, would you care to elaborate a bit? if you want to disagree, then i suggest you do it on substantive grounds. name-calling is not exactly the best way to persuade others.
djc,
My experiences at Anheuser-Busch in Saint Louis only affirmed for me the benefit of having different types of people with a variety of personalities, perspectives and skills working together.
As a manufacturing engineer, you of all people should have developed an understanding of the value of women out on the manufacturing floor.
That is, if you ever bother to leave your office and talk to the laborers...
Katie,
I'm not fully up to speed concerning the re pore between you and DJC.
After reading your post, addressed to him, it is clear to me, you don't seem to understand value of women in the workforce, can be trumped by other values.
As to women being the necessary ingredient in the workforce, otherwise it will be devoid of
"VARIETY" of perspective, personalities, and skills. I think it is a fair statement that a composite of those things were in the workforce prior to women entering it.
Just what "Value" were you referring to out on the production floor? You seem to be saying to DJC that if he had come out on the floor, he would have seen a "new" value, BECAUSE WOMEN WERE OUT THERE, as opposed to a floor of workers just comprising men.
As to your your last sentence, it seems to me you have begun to leave the meat of the conversation, and began to pursue the character assassination program. This doesn't help your credibility platform.
Jeff
Jeff,
You are absolutely right. I did get a little carried away. I left one comment referring to previous comments by djc which claimed that "allowing" women to enter the workforce was a blunder. I found it very offensive that in this day and age, there are still people who believe women have only one place: barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
I do believe that women are a valuable asset to the workforce; whether it be as a laborer or a CEO of a company. Science shows us that men and women are different in distinctive ways. This can be an advantage or a disadvantage depending on the situation (I wouldn't, for example, want to see a man working in a strip club full of female exotic dancers, or a woman working a heavy lifting construction job, especially if these choices were made to meet government requirements, and not by choice).
Again, I would like to apologize for my 2nd comment. I overreacted to being insulted (apparently I am clueless) after spending the better part of half an house typing a comment I had hoped someone would read and appreciate. In the future I'll be sure to react less with emotion and more with logic.
Katie
Dear Katie,
You still are not getting it! It is not about what you think is a valuable asset to the work place, women probably are. That is not the question! The question is, even despite womens imputes to the workplace, is it a wise move for them to be there, setting aside the time proven position, of being the child rearing party.
Your assertion, that women can do both, work out of the home and raise the children, is proven in our society as well as others to be a false concept.
Women have choices, and the position of mine is, their choice should be to remain in the home as the child rearing party.
AS to your qualifying of jobs that should be done or not done, this only bring out the weakness of your argument. If there are reasons women should not being doing certain jobs which you have deemed unacceptable, it must be a perfectly legitimate position to say they shouldn't be doing jobs out of the home for "my reasons". After all, you can't be the sole deliniator of which reasons are valid and which ones are not, now can you?
See your typing was not in vane, I did read and consider your position.
Also, I might suggest you refrain from using the "barefoot and Pregnant" comment as a support to your position.
There is obviously nothing demeaning about a woman being, "pregnant", or in the "Kitchen". As to the "barefoot" part, that too probably should be set aside. Too lack the financial state of the more wealthy, is nothing to be ashamed of. As the Messiah said: you will always have the poor with you.
Jeff
Big Government is the Enabler of Feminism.
The Republican Party has always had, Anti-Big Government as a main plank on its platform. It still does. The problem is, it has just become empty rhetoric in the past elections.
With Masculism on the decline in our country, the need of women is filled by Big Government. For those interested, read "The Decline of Males" by Lionel Tiger. His book is a nonsexist expose on what happens in a society which structures itself in a way which provides an alternative to the "Male".
With our nation trending more liberal every year and with the continued explosion of feminism the demand for larger government grows daily. We are to the point where the Republican party has decided to abandon the ship so to speak, vs. continue to support its valued conservative position it held down through the years.
They have joined the enemy so to speak. Which is the reason so many say, there isn't enough difference between them to hardly notice.
This is the reason, "The GOP is Pretty Dang Weak in the North Country". And not only in the North country I might add.
Conservatism will not return to this country until Liberalism fails. You see, conservatism is the Default setting of life. It is just few are willing to recognize it until they hit the proverbial wall.
Jeff
dear jeff,
i'm glad you've returned to the conversation, though i'm disappointed you've (so far) ignored essentially all points i raised in my june 9 2:49 comment. i would still appreciate the courtesy of a reply.
that said, i can't help but respond to your latest -- and in my view, horribly misguided -- comments. way back at the beginning of this comment thread, i labeled a remark you made as misogynistic (an assessment you've done nothing to disabuse me of, by the way). you responded that you're no misogynist. and while maybe that's true as a strict matter of definitions, maybe it isn't, there's no doubt now that you're an enthusiastic sexist. i'm sorry if that strikes you as harsh, but it's precisely what the word means; look it up here.
you ask if it's "wise" for women to join the workforce instead of staying home to raise children. you know what i think is wise for women -- and for men too, in fact? to have the freedom and opportunity to pursue their lives as they see fit. incredibly, you believe the best thing for society is to consign over half its members to some sort of subservient role. just as a simple question of mathematics, how can that possibly make sense? are you suggesting that women's interests don't count as much as men's?
it's utter baloney to claim that it's been "proven false" (what would that even mean?) that women can effectively work and help raise children. what sort of "proof" do you have? i and the vast majority of people i know were raised in families in which both parents worked, and everything turned out just fine! the only evidence you've cited so far is some kind of appeal to "time proven" gender roles. i hope for your sake that you have other support for your position, because that's a very weak line of argument. if tradition is what counts, then surely we should reinstitute human slavery -- after all, its abolition only occurred quite recently in human history, and it existed in many cultures for millennia prior to that. or perhaps the indian caste system should be implemented everywhere around the world -- that must have been an excellent way to organize society since it was around for so long. or maybe we should all convert to buddhism -- it has hundreds of millions of followers, and it's older (that is, more "time proven") than christianity, at least.
your critique of katie's argument regarding jobs that should or should not be done is silly. you're saying that because she doesn't take an absolutist position, she's forced to concede that any and all reasons that anyone might cite must all be equally valid. i can't speak for katie herself, but let me suggest that perhaps all reasons aren't equally valid, and that's what we should be debating.
and finally, i feel like this is just the latest manifestation of a question i've asked you several times without ever getting a straight answer, but how on earth is big government the enabler of feminism? i think the main "enabler" of feminism in western society is a deep-seated belief in equality of opportunity.
i should also add that i've been finding our discussion quite enjoyable, and i encourage you to continue pushing the republican party/conservative movement towards the kinds of views you've been espousing here. how do other republicans reading this feel? i look forward to your response, jeff, and i hope you have an enjoyable day.
Post a Comment