"We shill for Baba Striesand and we hate it!"
Posted on 10/05/2002 9:30:38 AM PDT by tip of the sword
Actually, the more the socialist-limp wristed-bedwetting-anti-war-homosexual loving-anti family-pro abortion-leftist wing of the democrat party acts up ---- the more I like it. It ends up exposing the *true* democRAT party agenda for all America to see --- and reject on voting day.
Are you saying that dimple in her chin is actually her belly button at the moment? :^)
This is what one observes in politicians when their core value is selfishness.
But one last time, if President Bush went after the Clintons in a way that would have made us all happy, he would have been destroyed by the Democrats and their friends in the media. How many times in the past two years has there been a major assault against President Bush.
One of the things that protects him is that the media has not been able to paint him as a evil man, the truth is, most Americans trust him.
Look what the Media has done with other's in the Republican party when they attempted to point out the corruption of the left.
I firmly believe that the President and his staff came into office knowing they were going to face this type of attack and have found a way to deflect it.
If I was playing chess, I would not exchange any of my pieces just to get Clinton. The man is so corrupt that in time he will do him self in.
As it is, by being nice, we are within a few days of having the House, and Senate under Republican control.
But fine, if you do not like the way the President has performed his duties, don't vote for him. Now that is not hard is it."
I hope you don't mind. I endorse your position, and it needs to be said again... and again... and again... and ...
Ain't life grand!
I like your statement, but your original premise is wrong. The Democrats are not opposing Bush to stop the war, as evidenced by their contrary position in 1998.
THEY ARE OPPOSING THE WAR BECAUSE THEY OPPOSE BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS!!!
Let us assume, that after the 2000 election, that he had done what you suggest. Remember, the Senate was split evenly, until Jeffords jumped, and the House had a slim margin. The popular vote was tilted to Gore, and approval ratings for the President were just a tad over 50%.
Also, remember that all indictments would have to take place in Washington, D.C., which is totally full of Clinton fans.
IF you found evidence, do you think you could get an indictment in DC under those conditions? And if by some miracle you got an indictment, do you honestly think you could get a conviction? Keep in mind a lot of people hadn't made up their minds about President Bush, and the media was poised to pounce on anything he did which looked like an attack on Clinton (remember how the media kept trying to get him to make a statement on the WH vandalism).
Under these conditions, Clinton would either not have been indicted, or would have been indicted but not convicted. Meanwhile Clinton's popularity would have continued, the media would have talked about nothing but the trial, and nothing (like tax cuts) would have gone through Congress. And when September 11 came, as it was going to anyway, he would not have had the trust of the people, nor the full backing of Congress.
Sometimes you need to look past the immediate gratification to the long-term consequences. Clinton has been gradually marginalized, although I grant he is still a threat. However, a lot more people know about his poor record on terrorism than would have known under your scenario.
By the way, I haven't even factored in how many seats we would have lost in the House and Senate with your plan.
I am glad President Bush has held his fire in this situation. He is far wiser than many people credit.
For some reason???
The Democrats have always placed their party above the interests of the country. Their modus operendi goes back to the anti-federalist (i.e., anti-Constitution) days of Tammany Hall and the founding of the country.
Agreed. But it IS a worrisome trend developing wherein the dims take to the courts to force an outcome that they fail to gain by the current rules. The McKinney lawsuit is particularly aggregious, as was the outcome of the Toricelli-Forrester race in NJ.
Barney Frank, of course. He could sport a real whip. Good ole Barney Frank could even invite them to dinner and ask them to bring their kids. Imagine the fund raising possibilities.
The President has at his disposal an amazing amount of power, but is also under a lot of restraints (and rightly so) in view of the fact he could (at his command) destroy a good portion of the world.
I happen to think President Bush is doing a great job considering what he has to work with. I also know he is not going to get done everything I would like see done. Dealing with some disappointments in life is a skill one should have learned as a child, but certainly by time someone is of voting age.
Excellent observation! I agree completely. Clinton was the key to their solidarity in the 90's, no doubt about it. I recall that, in the 80's, they were fractured and disorganized until Clinton came along and saved them.
It takes a long time for a major political party to disintegrate, and there are still tons of left-wingers at all the levers of power in our country, but we may be seeing the beginning of a shift in power that could wipe out the Democrat party or splinter it into Greens, Abortionists, Black Power advocates, Gay-Lesbians, Marxist Socialists, etc., etc.
The complete self-destruction and dis-integration of the party of evil. Now wouldn't THAT be something to behold in our lifetimes!
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.