Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Liz Cheney to back Romney
CNN.com ^ | January 27, 2008 | Dana Bash

Posted on 01/27/2008 8:18:37 AM PST by Romneyfor President2008

(CNN) — Liz Cheney, Vice President Cheney's daughter, plans to endorse Mitt Romney for president, three Republican sources familiar with the discussions tell CNN.

One of the sources says she will also serve as a senior adviser on foreign policy.

(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cheney; lizcheney; mitt; mittromney; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last
The Cheney family RAWKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 posted on 01/27/2008 8:18:40 AM PST by Romneyfor President2008
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Romneyfor President2008

I’m still waiting for Betty Ford’s and Marilyn Quayle’s endorsements before I decide.


2 posted on 01/27/2008 8:20:43 AM PST by pissant (Duncan Hunter: Warrior, Statesman, Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Betty Ford loves liberal RINOs, so she’ll certainly endorse the ultraliberal rodent-helper Joe Isuzu Romney.

What’s Liz being paid ?


3 posted on 01/27/2008 8:22:15 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj (~~~Jihad Fever -- Catch It !~~~ (Backup tag: "Live Fred or Die"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Romneyfor President2008

When Liz Cheney was on Fred`s team, you thought she sucked.

Now that she chooses to back the liberal Romney for POTUS, you’re jumping for joy. LOL


4 posted on 01/27/2008 8:25:25 AM PST by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Romneyfor President2008

You think this is going to help Romney when people clearly want to get behind Bush/Cheney, even among the current and has-been GOP candidates?


5 posted on 01/27/2008 8:28:31 AM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (The Constitution does not give me the authority to run your life - Ron Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
One of the sources says she will also serve as a senior adviser on foreign policy.

Well, there's your answer. Sounds like Mitt has a new job all lined up for her.

6 posted on 01/27/2008 8:31:30 AM PST by jdm (A Hunter Thompson ticket would be suicide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Romneyfor President2008
I keep hoping that GWB will decide he's just too tired to go on, resign so we can hear those words "I, Richard Bruce Cheney, do solemnly swear", and then Big Dick can run for the presidency with the advantage of incumbency, he will dominate any debate and eviscerate any 'Rat that gets nominated, and upon beginning his own term in his own right in January '09, he'll correct the navigational errors of his predecessor, and "all will be right with the world".

And his running mate?

I nominate our recently retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Peter Pace, USMC!

CHENEY/PACE '08!!!
7 posted on 01/27/2008 8:34:31 AM PST by mkjessup (GOP + FOX + National Review = The NEW "Axis of RINOs")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
What’s Liz being paid ?

A used pink Rambler.


8 posted on 01/27/2008 8:34:56 AM PST by ASA Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pissant
I’m still waiting for Betty Ford’s and Marilyn Quayle’s endorsements before I decide.

ROTFLMAO!

9 posted on 01/27/2008 8:35:43 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
I keep hoping that GWB will decide he's just too tired to go on, resign so we can hear those words "I, Richard Bruce Cheney, do solemnly swear"

I have been having that dream since GWB pissed away his 2004 mandate with his pathetic failure of a Soc Sec effort.

10 posted on 01/27/2008 8:37:03 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Romneyfor President2008
I'd have expected Mary Cheney to endorse him considering his record of support for the radical gay agenda.

U.S. Army Retired


11 posted on 01/27/2008 8:37:05 AM PST by big'ol_freeper (REAGAN: "..party..must represent certain fundamental beliefs [not] compromised..[for] expediency")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
I keep hoping that GWB will decide he's just too tired to go on, resign so we can hear those words "I, Richard Bruce Cheney, do solemnly swear", and then Big Dick can run for the presidency with the advantage of incumbency, he will dominate any debate and eviscerate any 'Rat that gets nominated, and upon beginning his own term in his own right in January '09, he'll correct the navigational errors of his predecessor, and "all will be right with the world".

******************

It's a nice fantasy, I admit.

12 posted on 01/27/2008 8:37:07 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet

She’d better check under the hood, since if it’s from Joe Isuzu Romney, it won’t have an engine.


13 posted on 01/27/2008 8:41:23 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj (~~~Jihad Fever -- Catch It !~~~ (Backup tag: "Live Fred or Die"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Romneyfor President2008

MYTH is very GAY friendly, no surprise here.


14 posted on 01/27/2008 8:43:31 AM PST by Rome2000 (Peace is not an option)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

“Now that she chooses to back the liberal Romney for POTUS, you’re jumping for joy. LOL”

As opposedto liberals Rudy, Juan or Huck?


15 posted on 01/27/2008 8:47:06 AM PST by Grunthor (What if Mitt offered the VP slot to Ralph Reed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Romneyfor President2008
Does she ever go hunting with Dick?
16 posted on 01/27/2008 8:47:32 AM PST by BallyBill (Serial Hit-N-Run poster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
OH Please!!!! Cheney is the worse of the worst in the GOP. Geeesh he and Poppy Dearest started the gutting of our military. What are you wanting to do? Let him finish it? Enough of the Nixon/Ford era Doofs. Same names, same mistakes, same results. Not on my vote.
17 posted on 01/27/2008 8:47:56 AM PST by cva66snipe (Proud Partisan Constitution Supporting Conservative to which I make no apologies for nor back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000

That’s the other Cheney daughter, though your point is still true.


18 posted on 01/27/2008 8:50:00 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj (~~~Jihad Fever -- Catch It !~~~ (Backup tag: "Live Fred or Die"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor
They ALL suck!

Not a conservative in the bunch!

Lets not overlook the fact that ONLY Romney has proposed a federalized health care system based on the infamous Massachusetts CommonWealthCare, aka. “RomneyCare”. The first step on the road to socialized medicine.

19 posted on 01/27/2008 8:53:22 AM PST by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Romneyfor President2008
my "Irrelevant" folder is getting pretty full...

I think I'm switching to "Delete."

20 posted on 01/27/2008 8:58:29 AM PST by the invisib1e hand (if you can't stand the heat, get out of the melting pot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

So you are not planning on voting for any of them?


21 posted on 01/27/2008 9:03:45 AM PST by Grunthor (What if Mitt offered the VP slot to Ralph Reed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

None of the above, baby. None of the above.


22 posted on 01/27/2008 9:06:04 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj (~~~Jihad Fever -- Catch It !~~~ (Backup tag: "Live Fred or Die"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Romneyfor President2008

This is a welcome and meaningful endorsement.


23 posted on 01/27/2008 9:07:48 AM PST by gruna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
I'm going to vote for Alan Keyes.

U.S. Army Retired


24 posted on 01/27/2008 9:08:19 AM PST by big'ol_freeper (REAGAN: "..party..must represent certain fundamental beliefs [not] compromised..[for] expediency")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

Keyes is a conservative and he has principles and convictions in abundance.

Compared to the four moderate-liberals running, you couldn’t do any worse. LOL


25 posted on 01/27/2008 9:15:36 AM PST by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Romneyfor President2008
Thanks for the good news! As for those who choose to bad-mouth our VP, I firmly believe that Dick Cheney is the best Vice-President this country has seen in my lifetime.
26 posted on 01/27/2008 9:16:56 AM PST by AlternateEgo (Fred Thompson for Supreme Court Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Yes, and it won't be on my conscience that I helped nominate a pro-culture of death candidate.

U.S. Army Retired


27 posted on 01/27/2008 9:18:14 AM PST by big'ol_freeper (REAGAN: "..party..must represent certain fundamental beliefs [not] compromised..[for] expediency")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
When Liz Cheney was on Fred`s team, you thought she sucked. Now that she chooses to back the liberal Romney for POTUS, you’re jumping for joy. LOL

You should know by now that calling the worst of the Mitt boosters on their own personal flip-flops won't get a response back from them. They'll just go on to the next talking point like you never even asked the question.

But for former Fred boosters, it sure doesn't help sell us on Mitt. It's pretty ugly. Rudy is still the only guy I couldn't vote for in the general. But some of Mitt's boosters are acting waay too much like Clintonites for my liking.

28 posted on 01/27/2008 9:20:45 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AlternateEgo
Thanks for the good news! As for those who choose to bad-mouth our VP, I firmly believe that Dick Cheney is the best Vice-President this country has seen in my lifetime.

And pay not atention to the hand in the back attached to W sitting on his lap. Why Cheneys lips don't even move AMAZING Act indeed.

29 posted on 01/27/2008 9:22:29 AM PST by cva66snipe (Proud Partisan Constitution Supporting Conservative to which I make no apologies for nor back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Comment #30 Removed by Moderator

To: dirtboy

Hey there dirtboy, long time.

Rooty is just about dead and for that I thank God.

Right now, the thought of Mitt Romney as the GOP nominee turns my stomach. I don’t see anything conservative about him. NOTHING!


31 posted on 01/27/2008 9:27:15 AM PST by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: Romneyfor President2008

Rumored.
Nothing official.
wishful thinking.


33 posted on 01/27/2008 9:28:25 AM PST by o_zarkman44 (No Bull in 08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Take a look at those bashing Mitt... Clintonistas? You have no clue what you’re talking about


34 posted on 01/27/2008 9:28:58 AM PST by NYC Republican (Romney/Barbour -the ONLY one to stop Huck, McCain, Rudy and Hillary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BallyBill

No. she brings her own.


35 posted on 01/27/2008 9:30:10 AM PST by o_zarkman44 (No Bull in 08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet

That was a hell of a car man..don’t diss it. 8-)


36 posted on 01/27/2008 9:30:43 AM PST by Armedanddangerous (Chuin, Master of Sinanju (emeritus))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican

Boy, that sure is gonna swing undecides over to your point of view.


37 posted on 01/27/2008 9:34:26 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican
Take a look at those bashing Mitt... Clintonistas? You have no clue what you’re talking about

Look in the mirror for exhibit A of what I'm talking about.

38 posted on 01/27/2008 9:34:55 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

Long time, indeed. How’ve you been doing?


39 posted on 01/27/2008 9:35:43 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
When you are a supporter of der Fliptmeister you have no basis to win an intellectual argument, since his record is as liberal as can be, so you simply resort to personal attacks. Its the Romney Sleaze Machine prime directive.

U.S. Army Retired


40 posted on 01/27/2008 9:36:47 AM PST by big'ol_freeper (REAGAN: "..party..must represent certain fundamental beliefs [not] compromised..[for] expediency")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
....Joe Isuzu Romney.

That's damn funny right there..

41 posted on 01/27/2008 9:40:43 AM PST by Michael Barnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Romneyfor President2008

Whoo Hoo!! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1959865/posts?page=51#51


42 posted on 01/27/2008 11:08:49 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Algore - there's not a more priggish, sanctimonious moral scold of a church lady anywhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
OH Please!!!! Cheney is the worse of the worst in the GOP. Geeesh he and Poppy Dearest started the gutting of our military.

Say WHAT?!?

Care to back up that allegation that Cheney "gutted" our military?

I'm looking forward to hearing this one.
43 posted on 01/27/2008 11:09:07 AM PST by mkjessup (GOP + FOX + National Review = The NEW "Axis of RINOs")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
OK. I'll play. In an act of what some say was spite the discontinuation of the U.S. Navy's best ever built carrier based fighter. Not only did he end production he ended ANY possibility that if we needed future production it would even be possible. We lost about as many ships under Bush/ Sec of Def Cheney as we did Poppy. Better yet see for yourself. U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1917- 1989-1993 121 ships gone. 1993-2001 was 117 ships gone and six years of that was with a GOP majority sitting in both house thanks to ones such as John Warner who did nothing NOR HAS BUSH Jr/ Cheney now has they?.

Poppy/Sec of Def Cheney started us on an undermanned military course that even after a GOP majority in congress/senate and a two term GOP POTUS RINO we have yet to even begin to rebuild or recover from. We are at 1996 End Troop Strength Levels as well. Still want Cheney now?

The military downturn began under Poppy/Cheney. We lost a carrier thanks to poor maintenance funding of their era. I can back that one up as well. Poppy used cutting the military budget and maintenance for his 1000 points of Gerald Ford Liberalism.

44 posted on 01/27/2008 11:56:46 AM PST by cva66snipe (Proud Partisan Constitution Supporting Conservative to which I make no apologies for nor back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

Alright then, let’s begin:

1.) What carrier based fighter are you referring to?

2.) Have our current levels of ships affected our ability to project naval power, and if need be fight the ‘2-1/2 wars’ that strategic planners and thinkers talk about?

3.) As for the number of ships cut from 1989 to 2001, the decisions, right or wrong, were made by the Commanders-in-Chief at the time, i.e., Bush I and Clinton, not Dick Cheney.

Cheney’s input was certainly a factor, but the final decision(s) were made by those higher up the chain of command.

So what would YOU have done differently?


45 posted on 01/27/2008 2:38:07 PM PST by mkjessup (GOP + FOX + National Review = The NEW "Axis of RINOs")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Romneyfor President2008

I can seriously see her somewhere in a Romney administration position.


46 posted on 01/27/2008 2:46:28 PM PST by johnthebaptistmoore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
1.) What carrier based fighter are you referring to?

The F-14 Tomcat. Great air frame still unmatched by it's replacement in overall preformance such as speed, payload, and radius capabilities. The replacement was an airframe downgrade. Lot's and lots could have been saved in both R&D and production start up cost etc by simply putting money into it's Avionics systems and weapons upgrades instead. It was the perfect mouse trap.

Have our current levels of ships affected our ability to project naval power, and if need be fight the ‘2-1/2 wars’ that strategic planners and thinkers talk about?

Yes. One good example was the USS COLE two days out from fleet. That added to a now complete dependence on the Suez to get into the PG and IO.

3.) As for the number of ships cut from 1989 to 2001, the decisions, right or wrong, were made by the Commanders-in-Chief at the time, i.e., Bush I and Clinton, not Dick Cheney.

Cheney had a lot to do it. So did POTUS. So did Senate Armed Services Committee. The GOP from 1989 on is every ounce as guilty in this fiasco as the DEMs including Slick Willie.

So what would YOU have done differently?

Kept two thirds of the Reagan military strengths for starters. Not ended production on current defense programs until a proven replacement {better} came along. Not put our national defense dependent upon other nations {F-15 grounding and 9/11 as well}. Sec of Def Rummy should have known month one what was functional and what wasn't IOW there should not have been the Kitty Hawk and KENNEDY issues discovered when Ooops they won't go. Of course Rummy was another Ford era mistake. He wasn't a good Sec of Def under Ford and caused a lot of issues even back then why did Bush think he would do better? I would put a man as smart and as wise as Cap Wienberger in as Sec of Defense. I would have insisted congress address National Defense as it's first primary Constitutional duty and not rebuilding Iraq with money our troops needed.

47 posted on 01/27/2008 3:07:29 PM PST by cva66snipe (Proud Partisan Constitution Supporting Conservative to which I make no apologies for nor back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

I’m impressed. You know your stuff.

I was always mystified by the decision to shut down the F-14 program, and for the life of me I don’t understand why we would keep older (and presumably less reliable) Minuteman III missles in the inventory while dismantling a newer and more powerful ICBM i.e., the LGM118A Peacekeeper aka the ‘MX’ as of the end of 2005.

The justification for such a bonehead move cannot be justified, as the Russians withdrew from START II in 2002 in a tit-for-tat response for the U.S. withdrawing from the absurd ABM treaty that should never have been negotiated in the first place.

I don’t share your view of Rumsfeld however, I think that history will vindicate him, especially since he was thrown under the bus by our illustrious Commander-in-Chief after the mid-term elections of 2006. But I fully agree with you that the Reagan/Weinberger perspective on defense policies was the best America could have hoped for.

Speaking of ‘America’, what are your views on the decommissioning and scuttling of CVA-66? Was that also a case of desposing of a carrier with useful life still in it?

I presume you have some personal experience with her? ;)


48 posted on 01/27/2008 3:55:45 PM PST by mkjessup (GOP + FOX + National Review = The NEW "Axis of RINOs")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
I went in the Navy in late 1976. Sec of Defense was Rummy. Don't take me wrong on this. I am not a Carter fan by any means as most of my enlistment was under him. But Carter was handed a royal mess too. I don't credit Carter for the improvements I saw before I got out in late 1980 but rather his Sec of Navy who took over in 1979. That man understood something Rummy did not. If you want men to act like sailors then treat them as such.

Naval tradition {Highly important to maintaining morale} was zilch in 1976. Edward Hidalgo I think his name was gave us back Bosuns whistles, crackerjack dress blues, and seriously and aggressively addressed retention. Up till then I saw 16 year lifers getting out.

The carrier I mentioned ran to the early grave was AMERICA CVA/CV-66. During Gulf War one and following she did three six month deployments in three years time. Two of them under Bush/Sec of Def Cheney. She should have headed into at least a year long overhaul at that point or better yet gotten S.hip L.ife E.xtension P.rogram. Her third and next to final deployment came under Clinton. However months before deploying she was in no shapes to go.

At one point no radar, unable to pump fuel, and two of six generators functional. I can't vouch for the fuel issues. But two of six generators meant no Air Conditioning which meant no electronics and I do know what I am saying on that issue. My job back in the 70's was working on air conditioning and refrigeration systems. Two of six generators would have made lighting off a more than one or two of her ten chillers an impossibility. She departed Norfolk August 1993 and returned March 1994. At the pier in Norfolk she had a major boiler room explosion which resulted in a Cold Iron Tow to Norfolk Ship yards. She was band-aided and sent on a final deployment. She was just over her half life expectancy at that point and was decommissioned.

America was the newest of the Kitty Hawks and second in age conventional carrier only to the Kennedy. Had she been treated right we would still have her and if the Kennedy had been treated right also we would have both about another decade. Maintenance means everything>

Which brings up another matter. Look at my bookmarks on Naval readiness. If Rummy and Bush ever read a paper they would have known things were royally screwed up before 9/11 hit. Kennedy had went through a botched overhaul intended to be S.L.E.P.

For shipyard repairs which is where these issues come from the crew from NCO-Captain must submit shipyard work request. This is generally done on the six month deployment so the yards can get things ready. The approvals must be signed by the Commanding Officer then are sent to fleet and Sec of Navy then Sec of Defense if it is a major cost. What I am saying is this. Two Navy Captains {Kennedy and Kitty Hawk} paid with their careers for incompetence occurring way above their pay-grade.

Speaking of ‘America’, what are your views on the decommissioning and scuttling of CVA-66? Was that also a case of desposing of a carrier with useful life still in it?

That was a gross waste of a fine ship and taxpayer money. She was savable till she was ran literally to death. I can understand two deployments but three? In three years? I've heard all the rumors and none add up. One was McNamara changed the order from nuke to conventional. Impossible to do once the keel is laid. Keel was laid while Ike was POTUS. I think the rumor got started because of a blueprint typo I remember seeing down in Central Control. The plumbing drawings had CVN-66 with a line though it. I remember it and so does a few others. But AMERICA was awarded conventional and keel laid under Ike. Next was a rumor of a thin hull. In 1960? Steel was cheap and the Navy had money to burn.

She was decommed in 1996 and sent to Philly. Over the course of time some crew members became organized and later took on a possibility of museum preservation. The Navy as well as some senators were less than honest about the issue. The word was no way. Next came the idea to sink her to gather data for the CVN78 class. Not what a lot of us wanted to hear but a noble fate though. So the idea of obtaining the namesake for that class came up. All along former crewmemebers had been writing letters making calls etc. In steps John Warner and puts forth a resolution to name it Ford. The same Warner who knew about Americas issues in 1994 as shown here Congressional Record 24 February 1994 Page: S1853

I read this article in about 1998 or so. I was mad then and I'm still angry now. It's not just the AMERICA. No ship should have been done like this and no crew exposed to such danger. Those boilers are 1200 PSI super heated steam systems. A leak the size of a #2 pencil lead can decapitate you. Here is an excerpt of what I was talking about.

The America needs constant attention. Commissioned in 1965, it is showing its age. A month before leaving Norfolk, a senior enlisted crew member complained to his congressman: The ship was operating on only two of its six electric generators, without radar and unable to pump fuel. This would be its third six-month cruise in three years, and without the standard 18 months at home for repairs, salt water and full steaming had taken their toll.

They were lucky to make it back and even more lucky no one got killed on that cruise. If the powers that be think they can abuse the nukes like this GOD help us all.

49 posted on 01/27/2008 5:01:47 PM PST by cva66snipe (Proud Partisan Constitution Supporting Conservative to which I make no apologies for nor back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

She didn’t suck..Lazy ass Fred did as a candidate..


50 posted on 01/27/2008 5:07:40 PM PST by GoMonster (GO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson