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

To: DBeers

They should get on the ballot in 2006. Which presents a dilemma for the Democrats: do they want to offend their gay backers or side with the folks who have the votes in flyover country? Its going to be an interesting two years.


2 posted on 11/15/2004 5:16:29 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: goldstategop

Political canabalism anyone? This should be entertaining.


5 posted on 11/15/2004 5:18:58 AM PST by SirLurkedalot (Thank You Veterans!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: goldstategop
They should get on the ballot in 2006.

That could help usher in more Republicans into office. :) Maybe we could get those extra seats we need to prevent a filibuser.

9 posted on 11/15/2004 5:32:54 AM PST by Netizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: goldstategop

The next battle will be to force those amendments to be placed on the ballots in 2006, and NOT BEFORE. They will try to get special elections held for these. The special elections cost state taxpayers a lot of money, and it will save most of the money to put the issue on the regular ballot during the next election, which in many cases is 2006.


42 posted on 11/15/2004 3:25:17 PM PST by savedbygrace ("No Monday morning quarterback has never led a team to victory" GW Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

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