"Diseases desperate grown/By desperate appliance are relieved, Or not at all." 
Posted on 02/20/2005 10:02:38 AM PST by Clintonfatigued
In the survey's hypothetical general election pairings, Baxley drew 39% to Riley's 35%. She led Moore 44% to 38%.
(Excerpt) Read more at al.com ...
is this a good thing or a bad thing, being that not all of us are from Alabama....???
PING!
It's a bad thing. Fortunately, Baxley's lead is slim with a substantial undecided vote.
ok....
which one of the 3 mentioned, Baxley, Moore or the other would be a good candidate?
Well, Bob Riley is the current governor, but his perofrmance in office has been pretty mediocre. A victory by Roy Moore would be an exciting developement, and most who log on this website are rooting for him.
hmmmm....ok....
thanks for the info....
The RINOs on FR (generally the types who despise the GOP and are only "Republicans" because their beloved RAT party is no longer in power throughout most of the deep south) should be quite pleased. They'll be spewing their usual garbage about how Baxley is the "true conservative", which is the same B.S. they used to elect abortion luvin' tax-and-spend Mark Warner in Virgina.
Its not bad, its very, very bad. Here are the current possible candidates for Gov of Alabama:
Incumbent Bob "One term" Riley (a Republican who's first attempt to do anything in office was to propose the largest tax increase in the history of the state)
Don "Bugsy" Siegelman (the former Dem gov, barely beaten by Riley, so sleazy its hard to even begin describing him)
Lucy (A Dem who who combines the worst of Riley (tax increase) and Siegelman (corruption))
And of course Reverend Roy Moore (I know alot of you on this board who don't live in Alabama love him, and if you do love him - please ask him to move to your state!)
I wouldn't be too worried. I think that Roy Moore will take the lead once he gets the chance to take his case directly to the people. If he wages a strong grass-roots campaign and doesn't rely too much on the media, he could start a political revolution.
Moore would/could be a good canidate IMHO.. if the dems didn't get him to chase his tail at every little morality bit they lobbed his way. He must be shrewd in his dealings, something that his pride tends to obstruct at times.
IMHO...
BTW.. Lucy Baxley is the last choise for me. Heck, I even vote for an LPer over her.
I still have not completely decided that Riley's tax hike was anything more than a feint to show the democrats how much the people are against tax increases (even for the schools). I know thats not what he said, and if he really meant it, then shame on him.
I don't know much about Moore either except that he has big ones. I never minded the commandments in the courthouse, but I don't know about his judicial leanings. He would be exciting certainly, but I would not like to see his run hand the governorship back to the democrats.
"Diseases desperate grown/By desperate appliance are relieved, Or not at all."
It was all about 'Roy'. Of course he wanted to start a fight. A fight he believed would go all the way to the Supreme Court. And who would argue the case before the Supreme Court? Why Roy Moore of course.
If you think getting rid of a publically funded monument in a government building is the same thing as the injustices that the founders faced, you are completely ignorant of history.
Well, Lucy Baxley is a Democrat, and it'll be a cold day in Hell before I vote for an Alabama Democrat after their particularly shoddy history (George Wallace to Don "the crook" Siegelman).
Unfortunately, this leaves Alabama with very little opportunity in this upcoming election. Barring a (desperately hoped for) late entry by a respected Republican into the governors race, I'll probably have to hold my nose and vote for Bob Riley again during the primaries and general election, though Riley has often acted as a kind of tempermental "lame-duck" since his tax hike failed at the polls (Riley was a better U.S. Congressman than Governor).
Even so, I cannot abide another Don Siegleman term (favoritism and old-style corruption abounded; and don't forget his endorsement of Al Gore back in '00 and his attempt to use the same kind of dirty tricks for himself in '02), and I will go to the mat before that egotistical wacko Roy Moore is my governor (talk about setting the state back a few decades...).
RE: "The RINOs on FR (generally the types who despise the GOP and are only "Republicans" because their beloved RAT party is no longer in power throughout most of the deep south) should be quite pleased. They'll be spewing their usual garbage about how Baxley is the "true conservative", which is the same B.S. they used to elect abortion luvin' tax-and-spend Mark Warner in Virgina."
Baxley is a liberal in "Blue-dog" clothing, a dyed-in-the-wool party hack who won't even denounce the former governor for his corrupt awarding of construction contracts to his friends and campaign cronies. She is no choice for our governor.
Neither for that manner is the grade-A loser Roy Moore, who flaunted his defiance of court orders, federal law, and the basic tennants of judicial restraint with his long campaign to boost his ego and advance his future political fortunes through a *STATUE*. Alabama doesn't need his "I am God, and He is me" attitude anywhere near our governors chair.
Panzer grey, your post #10 just about perfectly sums up the sorry state of affairs awaiting us in '06. God help us...
Roy Moore Bump!
RE: "Moore is the only one with enough courage to challenge the entrenched atheistic court system. I'm sure the English Crown thought the founders were nuts, too."
Wait, wait, wait...are you trying to compare that royal gasbag Roy Moore to the FOUNDING FATHERS???!!!
GAAHHHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa....Ohh, that's rich.
LUCY BAXLEY!!!!!????? Is she the wife of the former Attorney General Bill Baxley? His wife was named Lucy when I knew her. What has happened to Bill? I would think he would be the one running, as he did in 78. My husband and I worked for Bill Baxley's campaign for gov. in 78 (back when we were still southern Dems and didn't know any better). We were quite fond of both the Baxleys. They were very sweet to us and we grew close during the campaign. Bill took our small son (who played the fiddle with hubby's band which played for the campaign)to a toy store and told him to select whatever he wanted. I later gave their little son a small fiddle that had belonged to our son. We've lost track of them over the years and I certainly had no idea that Lucy had stepped into the world of politics (if this is the same Lucy).
RE post 8: I agree Judge Moore has my Alabama vote.
It would be ignorance if the story was as you say, but it wasn't. The monument was put up in response to the entrenched SC created dogma regarding religion in public service. This may be likened to the Boston Tea Party in terms of challenging a violation of the separation of powers instead of commodity taxes.
Okay. I see it is my friend. Wow, the things that happen to people when you lose track of them. She's been State Treasurer, she divorced Bill and married Jim Smith and is now the Lt.Gov. Lucy has been a busy girl.
If Riley acted like his voting record in Congress, he wouldn't be so vulnerable. As Governor, he has turned into a major flake. That said, Roy Moore is a, shall we say, polarizing figure. AL should be following GA and SC's strong trend to the GOP. But the AL GOP keeps shooting itself in the foot.
There are very few Dims I have voted for in decades but if the GOP nominates Moore, I will certainly either not vote in that race or vote fo the Dim or Libertarian. We do not need challenges about Federal judical supremacy from Alabama. It harkens back to terrible days in our past.
Maybe the Federal judiciary needs more challenges but not from AL where the governor famously challenged and lost. Moore being nominated also would be bad for the GOP nationally.
It is great that he is religious. It is great that he points out the irony that "historical" religious artifacts in court rooms are ok, but not news one? May the the Federal Courts should have allowed his monument. But it only harms the conservative cause nationally for him to get elected governor based on being a demogauge about one issue that has little or nothing to do with running the state of Alabama. We have bigger fish to fry and using up our energy on this is a mistake.
RE: "Well, actually, I'm comparing Moore's actions to those of the founders."
Not by a DAMN sight, mi amigo. Bill Pryor, Alabama's conservative former Attorney General and current federal justice is closer to my own liking, and yes, he did remove Moore's sorry a** from the court for refusing his orders to do his job and remove the large statue from the rotunda.
I'm as conservative as most on this forum, and I voted for Roy Moore, but I cannot support him for governor. If elected Moore would spend his entire tenure grandstanding on the national stage while ignoring the real problems in the state of Alabama.
I'm willing to give Riley another shot at it. I think Riley pushed the big tax increase expecting it to fail, thus forcing the legislature to deal with the problem by means other than taxes. Since then I believe he has been as good a governor as our crooked rat legislature will allow.
Would a conservative be an atheist? Did you ever read the transcript of Moore's hearing before Pryor and the other judges?
2006? Robert Byrd's dog Billy could be the frontrunner 21 months out. Call me in a year.
Riley wouldn't be so vulnerable to a possible Roy Moore primary challenge if he pushed that failed tax increase. Back in the fall of 2003, a lot posters on this forum called Riley the ultimate RINO. Riley has one year to rebuild bridges to the GOP base. Perhaps the possible challenge by Moore may make AL residents think that Riley isn't so bad after all. For me, I just want the most electable Republican to win the primary.
RE: "Would a conservative be an atheist?"
Sometimes, yes. The two are far from mutually exclusive, you know. have you heard of a little writer named Ayn Rand lately?
However, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the argument at hand because Bill Pryor is a CHRISTIAN, a practicing Catholic whose church-influenced opposition to abortion (an opposition I share) led the left-wing Democrats in the U.S. Senate to "filibuster" his nomination to the federal circuit courts last year, despite Pryor superb credentials and dedication to upholding the rule of law even when his personal sympathies may lie with the rogue lawbreakers (which he demonstrated by backing the removal of Roy Moore from his office). Pres. Bush went to bat for Pryor, though, placing Pryor on the court during the Congressional recess. Bush has renominated Pryor to the court back in January, and hopefully the new 55-seat Republican majority will lead to a permanent position for Judge Pryor.
Moore, on the other hand, reminds me of the hypocrites that Jesus warned against, the ones who loudly proclaim their love for God in the public not out of any duty to Christ, but as a service to themselves and their personal advancement. Moore is a phony, and Moore is a lawbreaker, and I WILL NOT support him in the '06 election, even if that means wasting my vote on a Libertarian candidate for the first time.
Tell me, without reference to any SC opinions, in what way does this preclude a state SC justice from puting up a monument, of whatever size, on public property, over which he has control, of the acknowledged basis of the English and American common law?
RE: "Tell me, without reference to any SC opinions..."
Ah, ah, ah-- not so fast there, bud. That's cheating, and I won't let you get away with it.
You know as well as I that the SCOTUS is the final interpreter of the Constitutionality of a law or laws in the United States- PERIOD. Roy Moore is not like you or I. Moore was a lower-court JUDGE (a chief justice of a state supreme court at that), and as such he was bound to act according to the laws of the land as interpreted by SCOTUS at this particular time. His repeated attempts to justify his rogue actions (and I thought conservatives were supposed to oppose judicial activism...) by citing "God's law" were particularly galling to most intelligent observers of Moore's 10 Commandments charade as they were essentially alike to Moore proclaiming himself to be ABOVE the very laws that he was sworn to protect and OBEY.
Basically, Moore told the Alabama Supreme Court, the Governor, the State AG and the SCOTUS itself that he had some kind of connection to God Almighty that they lack, and that that connection gave him the right to disobey whatever superior court rulings he chose to because of that connection.
I don't know about you, but that just doesn't fly with me.
Look at the plain words of the 1st amendment. The topic it covers is covered there and nowhere else in the Constitution.
Either tell me how those word keep an Alabama judge from putting up a monument of the 10 commandments or tell me how the Supreme Court arrives to that conclusion.
If you can do neither one, you don't have the knowledge or understanding of the issue to have an opinion of Moore.
RE: "Either tell me how those word keep an Alabama judge from putting up a monument of the 10 commandments or tell me how the Supreme Court arrives to that conclusion."
Inappropriate attempt to "frame" the argument. I refer you again to the historic (and legally binding) Marbury Vs. madison decision in 1803, in which the SCOTUS ruled that (per the World Almanac) "Congress had exceeded it's power in the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Court thus established it's power to review acts of Congress and declare invalid those it found in conflict with the Constitution".
Do you deny that this jurisdiction over the Constitution's legal interpretation extends to the lower courts just as assuredly as it extends to elected legislatures? If you have a problem with the SCOTUS's ruling on the Moore case (failing to consider it, therefore allowing the lower courts ruling to stand), maybe you should take it up with the last 222 years of American history instead of me. And maybe Moore should've just done the freakin' job that Alabama citizens elected him to do and left it at that rather than diverting attention from his record with his statue controversy. [NOTE: I intensely disagree with a few of Moore's other actions as Chief Justice as well, like his 2002 ruling that resulted in a loving mother being denied custody of her own child because of Moore's personal opposition to her lesbian sexuality. Do a search on FR and you might find the old article, as well as the evil and hateful comments of many a Roy Moore-supporting FReeper].
RE: "If you can do neither one, you don't have the knowledge or understanding of the issue to have an opinion of Moore."
I don't need to be a rocket scientist to identify a grandstanding horses-ass when I see one, Billy. That role fits the "10 Commandments judge" like a glove, but I think the people of Alabama will be smart enough not to fall for his single-issue, populist power grab when '06 rolls around.
Once again, I'll cast a vote for the Libertarian candidate before I'll cast one for Moore. Maybe Riley will cream the good "Reverands" butt in the primaries and I won't have to make that decision.
RE: "Marbury Vs. Madison stated that all three branches have the responsibility for keeping to the constitution, and to keep the other branches in line. Their decision was not only aimed at the judicial branch."
That's true, but what's your point?
Show me where a relevant elected legislature (Alabama's or the U.S. Congress) has voted to pass a resolution condemning (or "overturning") the decision that forced Roy to move his statue from the Capitol Rotunda. Don't bring up the other two branches if you haven't got any proof of their supposed willingness to side with Moore.
You said in a prior post, "Basically, Moore told the Alabama Supreme Court, the Governor, the State AG and the SCOTUS itself that he had some kind of connection to God Almighty that they lack, and that that connection gave him the right to disobey whatever superior court rulings he chose to because of that connection."
Our country can be destroyed by rogue SC rulings. That process is well on its way. So, your philosophy seems to be that we will allow our country to be destroyed, so long as it is the SC that does the destroying, because we must obey their rulings regardless.
I suspect Moore does have "some kind of connection to God Almighty that they lack", along with a majority of other people in this country. I say "majority" because of the fact that such restrictions on the use of the faith on which the country was founded had to be implimented through the courts, not the legislative bodies.
I ask again, how does the plain wording of the 1st amendment keep a state judege from erecting any size monument to the principle on which our system of law is based; or, what was the SC reasoning and evidence they used to come to such an interpretation?
Unless you can tell me this, you don't have the understanding of the issue to judge. You have to fall back on, "The US Supreme Court said it, so it much be right and must be law and must be obeyed."
Tell me, at what point will the SC rule so that you will stand up and refuse? Is there any line in the sand for you? Using foreign law to rule on US cases, maybe? What?
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.