Posted on 06/11/2003 4:16:25 AM PDT by Chairman_December_19th_Society
LET'S ROLL!!!
We are under flood warnings here.
Eldest daughter made it to France safely. (We got a call at 1:00 A.M... Yeehah!)what a thrill it will be for her.
Was at my mom's last night to watch the Hannity interview with Juanita Broderick, and then suffered through the garbage of Elelanore Clift, and Melissa Estridge.
Logic dictates that the one thing you have to ask yourself, if you're trying to determine the truth, is who benefits the most?
The answer is obvious. Broderick isn't getting any big book deal, and has turned down such offers. The Clintons... well... we know the answer to that.
I just can't believe these liberals who go merrily on with life, having got to know who are the big liars around here.
How do they look themselves in the mirror at the end of the day?
Saw your Home page. LOL! ;)
Believing that, she felt the impeachment was hypocritical and dislikes Republicans because of it.
I still feel that we need to ignore the sex stuff. The despicable duo want us to talk about that. Last night Hillary said that they were tracking bin Laden when Monicagate happened. This is, of course, an attempt to blame bin Laden on the Republicans' supposed pre-occupation with sex.
Blah!!
You will be giving Molly and P. a tour of WP on Friday?? I hope they packed umbrellas.
The weather is NOT cooperating with our entertaining.
I think this is to get the scandals out of the way for 2008. There is no one that believes that Dubya can be defeated in 2004. Remember my likeability factor? If you compare 1988 with 2000 you will find that the difference between the 88 vote for a "third" Reagan term and the 00 vote for a "third" Clinton term was the publics dislike for Gore. People wanted the Clinton economy. And make no mistake that 30 percent in the middle wanted to continue the Clinton Economy. The half of the unideological center that votes for personality voted for dubya. The half that votes for "whats in it for me" voted for Gore. That was the basis of the presidential tie vote.
2004 will find Dubya has held his base. And has held the half of the middle that votes on likability. He will also get over half the "Whats in it for me" half of the center. "Whats in it for me" included protecting "me" from terrorists and if the economy is back on a roll, he will get 2/3 of the what is in it for me. He could break the Reagan numbers from 1984.
Hillary fully understands this situtation. She needs as you point out, to get some if not half the likeability vote in 2008. Polls tell her in no uncertain terms that she can't win a likability contest with Bush. She can't win the "Whats in it for me" vote if there are terrorists in the world. She has to wait for 2008.
What that means is she must take the sex scandals off the table. She does that with a book tour 5 years before she intends to run. They are doing this so it can be treated in the media as "Old News" gone over a hundred times by Hillary in 2003. She wants the scandals off the table in 2008.
What Hillary does not fully understand is the future growth in influence of Fox, Talk Radio, and the Internet. Her problem is she will not be able to take anything off the table. She may be aware of that.
Hillary is a realist. Right now it looks like the Republicans would not have a likable or even known candidate to run in 2008. It must look good to her.
What I invite people to do is watch Dubya put the spotlight on several potential candidates for 2008 during his next term. They will all be qualified for the job, the one that most connects with the voters will get a real buildup.
The Democrats are expecting to run against a nobody in 2008. Dubya will be concerned about his legacy.. that is the continuation of his plans and policies. He will groom people to take his place. He can't do it before he is re-elected... but he certainly will after. If Dubya gets that done so there is a popular and known heir apparent, Hillary my keep her pledge and not run in 2000.
People like Rush are saying that Hillary will have to face Rudy in 2006. That is just not true. If she does indeed plan to run, and Rudy looks like he might defeat her, she will not run. People stay in elected office to get media attention.That is the conventional wisdom. But Jimmy Carter proved otherwise. He was an ex governor two years before the 1976 election. He spent that two years running for the presidency and Won. That fact is not lost on Hillary Clinton.
If she thinks she can win in 2008, she will nto run for the senate and devote her time to being democratic spokesperson and builder of the parties grass roots. Remember too that Nixon lost the race for president in 1960, and the race for California governor in 1964. He then spent the next 4 years working to rebuild the Republican party. It got him the nomination.
There is no reason Hillary can't do the same think. I think she will. Only if Hillary has decided she can't be president, will She run for re-electin to the senate in 2006.
In regards to your sister's argument:
All men in power act like this?
Since when?
And if that being the case, their continued defense of this dispicable act actually condones such behavior.
Rape? Why do we care, because all men in power do this. It must be OK!
That type of thinking is so void of logic, that I don't know how you deal with it. Grrrrrr......
So in her mind, the Packwood/Thomas alleged incidents(which I believe were setups) are forgiveable or is it just the men in her party who get a pass?
Wait..wait. I think I know the answer.
AMERICA’S WAR ON TERROR – Day 639
The news as reported in The Washington Times:
[Note – All links go to The Washington Times’ website.]
1. Sec’y Rumsfeld has picked a retired special forces general to be the next Army Chief of Staff.
[Interesting, as the selection tends to be watched as a clue to DoD’s military focus.]
Army chief pick shows Rumsfeld's new focus
2. Israel attempted to assassinate the leader of Hamas; in return, Abdel Aziz Rantisi has vowed “not to leave one Jew in Palestine.”
[While we are in a finish fight with Al Qa’eda, I’m not sure why we cannot understand why Israel is also in a finish fight with Hamas and Hezbollah.]
Israel tries to kill Hamas head
3. It is expected the United States and India will finalize a deal allowing the latter country to send forces to Iraq to help keep the peace.
[Looks like the United States has to look beyond its traditional “allies” for help in this matter. France, Germany, Belgium – we will remember!]
U.S. works on Iraq deployment deal
4. It is less likely there will be a Supreme Court vacancy this year.
[Good thing – the Criminal Party would lock up any nomination.]
Supreme Court vacancy looks less likely this year
5. The United States Marines are angry over a proposal to rename the airfield on Guadalcanal – the one they fought and died for in the Second World War – after the chrysanthemum – the national flower of Japan.
[That is way not cool!]
New fight brews over Guadalcanal
6. US volunteers urge greater public service.
[Be citizens, not spectators.]
U.S. volunteers gather to urge public service
7. In Virginia, the GOP did well in the open primary held yesterday, a good portend for November and the Party’s desire to gain veto-proof majorities in the commonwealth’s Assembly and Senate.
[Woo Hoo!!!!!!!]
GOP's Rollison upset in primary
8. Natural gas prices are likely to rise sharply.
[Yep – that’s because the Government pushed the use of natural gas without working to create more supply.]
Natural gas prices predicted to rise
We shall not rest until we have cut a swath 60-miles wide through the entire left - taking all that is before us with us as we go. We shall leave nothing to the enemy that may be of value to him. We shall show him that he may count on nothing and will be able to keep nothing, not his spirit, not his soul, not that upon which he shall feed. We shall not cease until the moment we have rent through their entire land and have arrived at the sea, with our glorious victory upon us.
Home Page of the December 19th Society
Now you have the info, go support the United States of America!!!
My brother Art, has a great idea. I love it.
Let's go back to the Dems and propose this idea...
OK... you guys are right, Bush wasn't really elected in 2000, and really is our illegetimate President. Now... that being the case, he should be able to run in 2004 for his first "Real" election, and the run again in 2008 for a 2nd term.
What do you think?
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.