Posted on 10/22/2007 6:41:05 PM PDT by grandpa jones
...
#6. Mike Huckabee is so powerful, even the ugly, unwanted, weight he discarded is running for president: Dennis Kucinich.
#5. The 1976 Tangshan earthquake killed over 250,000 people. Nine months later, the Huckabees welcomed their first son.
#4. Mike Huckabee spelled backwards is “Jesus Loves You.” It’s not? I dare you to tell that to Mike Huckabee.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at conservablogs.com ...
I’ve liked him ever since he set up a collection system and said that anyone who wanted to pay more tax could send the state a check.
You’re not alone, oyez
I agree with you completely. And don’t feel too bad, Dick Morris said he expects Hucks numbers to rise, he said this last week, before the Debates. And you are absolutely correct in your assessment that Huckabee seems to be a man loaded with Character.
Huckabee is a fine former Governor.
He is not to be trusted with power again.
Don’t let the bandwagon at FreeRepublic fool you, they are only a tiny fraction of the Republican Party, you are entitled to your opinion, don’t ever feel appologetic either. I like Fred, but he’s no Huckabee.
And why is Huckabee a “kook?” Don’t tell me, because he isn’t an ex Senator who voted against impeachment? And another good reason why Huckabee is a “kook” is because he is a governor. Really, how can you compare him to Ron Paul, an obnoxious Representive. You are so transparent and it’s so clear what is motivating that nasty comment.
Fred Thompson is a fine former Senator, he is not to be trusted with power again. He voted against impeachment. By the way, Ronald Reagan was a former governor who many thought he should never be in power again either. I’m so glad that that opinion was ignored.
That's a lie.
Thank GOD.
Fred Thompson doesn't inspire many of us. After 7 years of cringing every time GWB tries to articulate his thoughts, I'm not ready to see another conservative at the top of the ticket who cannot communicate effectively and persuasively.
Huck has his problems, but he has the right stuff to make it, if he continues to improve in the polls, and impress on the stump.
Thanks for your comments.
That’s just not right, and makes you sound kinda kooky.
“I therefore vote to acquit the President of the charges alleged against him in Article I.”
You say that’s a lie, I just did a google search and found Fred’s statement regarding Bill’s impeachment. Fred blew his right to be president when he voted against impeachment. AS a matter of a fact, because the Senate voted against impeachment, I will go even one step further and say that NONE of the Senators deserve to be elected until the Clintons are no longer a political threat! How do you like that one? The truth hurts. But people need to wake up.
“As a Senator, Fred’s “Not Guilty” vote was against conviction, not against the actual impeachment vote, which occurred in the House.”
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but that is a technicality. He should have voted to convict. It doesn’t get Fred off the hook, because he couldn’t have voted in the House being that he was a Senator. My opinion still stands.
First, Fred could not vote to impeach...impeachment was done in the House.
Second, Fred voted to convict on the second count, “Obstruction of Justice,” and only one conviction is needed to remove from office.
Thus, your post is demonstrably false on several levels.
Fred . . . voted against impeachment.
False and factually impossible.
The truth hurts. Want some aspirin?
It's a fundamental fact of constititional law. Hell, it's a fundamental fact of high school civics.
Only half true.
Add this:
As a Senator, Fred's "Guilty" vote was for conviction on count II, "Obstruction of Justice," not against the actual impeachment vote, which occurred in the House.
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.