Posted on 10/24/2005 11:49:49 AM PDT by AliVeritas
All welcome. Come and discuss.
(Excerpt) Read more at wabcradio.com ...
Thanks for the links. This thread, and today's Rush thread have been excellent.
Do you really think there are enough adults in the democrat party to actually take it back from the radical pelosi, kerry, moore liberal left? I just don't see how the democrat party can ever be taken serious again, unless there is a split, and the democrat party is all the adults, and the split off new party is some liberal pink party.
D'oh. Yes, Senate Minority leaders. I was thinking of daschle and for so long he was the Majority leader. Thanks for correcting that for me. 8)
Yep. Another thing Rush has pointed out many times and it's spot on right. Liberals NEVER run as liberals except in the most liberal of places, kennedy MA, pelosi SF, etc., because they know that running as a liberal is a sure way to lose. They know most Americans do not want liberalism in charge of this country. Deception and baseless accusations are all they ever have.
Yeah I remember that. It was such a joke. All it did was prove just how much liberal bias was involved in this, and prove that joe wilson is nothing but a political hack and a liberal lap dog. The fact that he is good friends with schumer, known to be one of the most liberal Senators ever, nothing but a socialist, proves just how politically motivated, not fact motivated the whole plame-gate thing is.
Adult Dems I know do not think there's a problem. When confronted with a Cindy Sheehan or Howard Dean, they tune out or say there's extremists on both sides. I honestly don't think they see what's happened to their party, they are blinded by hatred for Bush and will tolerate anybody as long as they harbor the same hatred.
My feeling is we'll see a true crackup when they realize they have to run against someone who's NOT BUSH.
George Allen is the next President of the United States.
You can't trust a DUmocrat...ever!
But I remember him being pretty glum last november at 6pm.
The Hatch Act? Haven't heard that angle before.
I missed it. What did he say about this? It seems feasible.
Wouldn't in some ways Janice Rogers Brown not be as big a risk on the SCOTUS as Miers is believed to be? She's a Libertarian, and has some funny ideas about some Constitutional issues, as well as being pro-choice. I never have understood why so many conservatives lump Brown in the same category as Precilla Owens, Michael Luddig, or ones like them. Am I missing something?
Hatch act?
George Allen is not doing himself any harm with this interview. Good.
The Hatch Act, August 2, 1939, was designed to "prevent pernicious political activities," primarily by regulating the relationship between federal agencies and political campaigns. It prohibited using for electoral purposes any public funds designated for relief or public works. It also forbade officials paid with federal funds from using promises of jobs, promotion, financial assistance, contracts, or any other benefit to coerce campaign contributions or political support.
See, that's something I don't understand. Who are the "Dean, Moore, Sheehan, etc." radial left-wing anti-war liberals, on the Republican side? Who are the supposed far right radical people that most in the Republican party consider radicals, like the friends you mentioned who are democrats think dean, moore, and sheehan are radicals on their side. That's where they don't make sense. There are none in the Republican party that are conservatives, that many other conservatives think are radicals. If there's anyone in the Republican party that most of the party frowns on as being too far to one side, it's the RINOs who are too liberal and do not stand for the party plank. It's a shame that there are so many rational democrats who turn a blind eye to the moore, dean, sheehanites who have hijacked their party, and they continue to let it happen and turn a blind eye to what they do to the country.
He's impressive...
OH, and I agree very much too that when the democrats are forced to run against someone that is not W. Bush, they'll be toast. For five years the liberals have been living nothing but being anti-Bush. That's all they have. Come January of 2008, when the Republicans are choosing their new standard barer, and the democrats don't have W. to use as the person to oppose anymore, how will they function? They will have been addicted to eight years of their "anti-Bush" drug they've been so fixed on, and I don't know that they'll be able to go cold turkey and not run against Bush anymore. That could be very interresting. 8) If they just transfer the hate they have for W. to the next Republican candidate, that will turn people off because then it will be clear that they're not just opposed to Bush, they're opposed to any conservative and are unwilling to work with anyone from the other side. That will hurt them too.
Most of the sensible ones have either become Republicans, or served out their terms. I read that there are grass roots efforts by pro-life Dems to try to influence the party. I pray they are successful. We need two parties who have the best interests of the country at heart, and the debate should be about how to best accomplish that. Right now the battle is to stave off an absolute Marxist takeover of the government.
That was a GREAT interview. I don't know about having Rudy for VP. I like him, but he's a RINO (much as I hate saying that). Personally, I'd love to see J.C. Watts for VP. He would be AWESOME!!! Or if they could talk Rice to running for VP, and after eight years she could either run for President or not. Her choice. But she's so intelligent, and has been so involed with the War on Terror all through it's first eight years (at that point), she would be an invaluable asset to have in the next Republican Presidential administration.
I believe Janice Rogers Brown was one of those on the top list of possible nominees who asked that her name be taken off the list.....because she didn't want to subject herself or her family to the 'viciousness' of the process.
On the other hand Harriet Miers appears to have 'the right stuff' to take the mud thrown at her.....and according to the President (who knows her judicial philosophy) she will vote the 'right way'.
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.