Someone mention Frank Keating?
Posted on 01/31/2007 5:46:06 PM PST by Dark Skies
Okay, if you say so.
Spot on!
What do you think of him?
Ohio and Pa. are states we need to win. Zippo, nada, bupkiss there.
Personally, I love Haley Barbour. He will NOT run for president this time around and I don't have any idea IF he would take the V.P. spot.
Can YOU think or anyone who would suit?
I just have to say if a Democrat gets in the White House we are in trouble. I really believe this.
I couldn't think of a single person, who actually TAKE THE POSITION, IF OFFERED, but PKM said "how about Frank Keating" and it makes a LOT of sense. :-)
Nighty night and pleasant dreams.
IMO the reason Rudy is doing so well across the board, is that people are growing more and more alarmed in their gut about the threats posed by radical islam. Even though GWB has not led adequately, people know that the dims would lead us down the path of disaster. The candidate who leads and inspires confidence to fight the WOT (and also against uncontrolled immigration) will get elected.
Rudy/Keating would be a GREAT ticket!
Sad to say, I don't think as you do.
A conservative can beat Hillary only if he goes on the offensive against her MSM allies, calls them out and confronts them.
Republicans - all the way up to the White House - failed to do this in 2004-2006, and paid the price.
First, you have to engineer a plan. There was none. There was no consultation or attempt to enlist the expertise of people like Dr. Bill Wattenberg in developing one after the first attack on the World Trade Center several years previous to 9-11.
And I will bet that every large liberal city in this country where the bureaucrats are busy stealing the tax money, there is still no plan other than if you are above floor # x, you are screwed. (That is why I hate big cities. Nobody gives a damn beyond their next quarter's earnings.)
Secondly, the disaster protocols for first responders were not followed like they were at the Pentagon and many others who would have survived did not.
New York is not the only place where people died that day. We still have security leaks and treason coming right out of New York, Washington D.C. and American universities. Nobody is saying a word or doing anything about it.
To top it all off, the people of New York, despite the failures of the Clinton crowd to combat terrorism, reelected that idiot to the U.S. Senate. Who lead the charge to oppose her? Nobody. Now, if that is leadership, no wonder we have the bunch in power we do today. Electing more of the same is not going to win this war.
More polite conversation on the talking head traitor television programs, droll newspaper editorializing, useless commissions, blue ribbon panels and symposiums sniping at our Judeo-Christian culture, our military, and our president without a rigourous voice of opposition from the candidates isn't going to help anything.
Republicans - all the way up to the White House - failed to do this in 2004-2006, and paid the price.
Despite the failures of the Clinton administration to fight terrorism, the people of New York reelected her to the Senate with nothing but token opposition. I do not want that same crowd from either party giving us a fancy Madison Avenue labeled president and claiming they have "leadership." Let them keep it in New York...
Polite conversation and warm, fuzzy media blather in Rockefeller Plaza, lying seditious editorials, security leaks and outright treason from the media and elected officials unanswered and unconfronted will not help us win the election or the war.
You keep saying it incorrect, but you refuse to point out where it is incorrect. And even if you could quibble about 1 or 2 items on the chart, which you probably can't, the chart would still show that Giuliani disagrees with the Republican Party on the majority of issues. It puts to a lie the contention that with Giuliani you get most of what you want as a Republican. You hardly get any of what you want if you're a Republican who supports the party's actual ideology.
Amen. The Rudy-Rooters seem committed to repeating the same failed strategies which would ultimately result in a Democrat being elected in 2008.
States vote to ratify Amendments.
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.
The U.S. Constitution says this:
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...
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.