Posted on 11/16/2004 7:24:17 AM PST by gopwinsin04
Tony says his sources are telling him this..
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Lieberman might be a possibility
He is a moral slob and an antifreedom authoritarian.
Your point that it's ok to advocate the murder of babies in order to get power is repugnant.
I'm pro-life but this is ridiculous. How in the world does the head of the Department of Homeland Security affect the abortion issue? God how I wish Pitchfork Pat had led the kooks and nuts permanently out of the GOP where they could perpetually get that 1% of the vote for being 100% pure on all issues.
Lots of good ones to choose from - Rudy, Zell, Benard Karik(sp).
I still don't see why you would want this moron when we have a whole country of conservatives to choose from. Like this liberal swine is the only guy who could oppose terrorism effectively?
I don't think General Sherman was a big abolitionist but he was against secession and that was good enough for Abe Lincoln.
General Sherman was a soldier, Abe was a moron.
Now back to PC-America where perky Katie Couric is more likely to be the choice.
Right.
Although another northeastern liberal senator may be the DEMOCRATS' worst nightmare!
But we can't underestimate her.
Seems like 40% of the country will vote Democrat no matter who they run.
I am surprised that Mineta's name has not come out yet. When is President Bush going to fire this guy?
He may be to liberal (Rudy) but were not electing him on social or moral issues. He is going to look after Homeland not the supreme court :))))).
The Democrats have made a huge political mistake by driving all the pro-life people out of their party.
This was a demanding and thankless Job. Ridge has done his share.
The point is Lincoln was looking for good soldiers to win the war...he didn't give a damn what their views on slavery were!!
Great info...thanks!
It's not about abortion, it's about liberalism.
How in the world does the head of the Department of Homeland Security affect the abortion issue?
Why in the world would you want liberals in your cabinet when pleanty of able consevatives are available. Unless of course, you aren't conservative, which describes Bush very well.
God how I wish Pitchfork Pat had led the kooks and nuts permanently out of the GOP where they could perpetually get that 1% of the vote for being 100% pure on all issues.
Wouldn't have bothered me a bit. Pat is an imbecile.
Yep. BTW, he wasn't opposed to slavery himself, he never freed a single slave. He was a racist.
As I stated in my post, I am pro-life.
Homeland Security has no power to affect abortion law. Why would it matter one iota if a pro-abort politician who was qualified took the Homeland Security position? It doesn't...except to the 100% purity nutcases who believe every politician must agree with their personal views 100% of the time.
It always seems like each party is going to get 40% no matter what. What I like about the GOP position now is the Dems have given up on so much of the country that the Republicans can focus their energy on the midwest. If the GOP gains in a few more midwestern states the Dems will be just a northeast/left coast party for a generation.
If Tom Ridge goes, this would be the best job in the Bush adminsistration for Rudi Giuliani. Not quite as high profile as Mayor of the Big Apple, but the right fit. IMHO, of course. If not Rudi, then former NYCity Police Commissioner, Bernie Kereck would be the next best choice.
We aren't electing him to anything, it's not an elected position.
Well, there goes my boss!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.