Posted on 12/28/2005 9:31:48 AM PST by Valin
Oh sob! And me so young and fair.
Good find, Valin
I say put it to a vote immediately. Put up or shut up.
The '06 shift in the House will be that the majority party will add more seats. And momentum will build for a candidate to succeed President Bush who will carry on his policies.
Too bad the Rats don't fight the terrorists with the same vigor they fight the President!
Pray for W and Our Victorious Troops
In the words of Chairman Hao: Yeee-arrghhh!! Let's impeach him for monitoring the calls of terrorists and the people who talk with terrorists. That's a great Democratic recipe for an election year. Ranks up there with the bin Laden "don't vote for Bush" message of 2004.
Fine... Let them.
Bring on the impeachment. It will ensure that the Democrats remain out of power for at least another generation.
Nope, no chance, MSM has lost too much credibility. The percentage of Americans that trust the MSM is closer to single digits than 20%.
You are correct that the loon left would try without considering consequences, but this will lose them votes not gain them any.
President Bush is not a conservative. Never has been, at least when you put yourself as the "center" and anyone to your left is a liberal, and anyone to your right a (true) conservative.
Have you ever considered the possibility that those to your right would consider you to be a liberal?
Could President Cheney win as an incumbent in 2008?
If they hold off until after 1-20-2006 Cheney could run for a 2nd full term in 2012.
See reply 12
Cheney could possibly be the worst person the Republicans put up for nomination. If Hillary is the Dem's nominee, the only person the Republican party has is Condi and we all know Condi will beat Hillary.
This talk of impeachment is one of the many reasons we cannot lose in 2006. How some of you are talking, however, it looks like arrogance is taking over, as it has been. Once that happens, we lose. I'd love to see 60+ Republicans in the Senate (to overcome those damn fillibusters) but I think I'd have a better chance of winning the lottery.
As for Condi, I've loved her as a person ever since she gave a speech at a Bush 1 Presidential convention. It was little covered, but was the second best speech given there (Reagan's last convention speech was, well, Reaganesque.) She is a brilliant, supremely competent woman. I've never seen her out debated by anyone on any subject. Sadly perhaps even more importantly, she embodies a demographic wedge that could kill off what's left of the coalition that used to be the Democratic party. As a potential President there are a few blanks about her I'd like to fill before I jump on her large Internet bandwagon. We know little about her beliefs on many important domestic issues. Most importantly, we don't know whether she wants the job, nor even whether she'd take it if presented with it on a silver platter.
Don't be so quick to rate Hillary's chances. She'd start with a very large anyone-but-Hillary base which won't shrink and may well grow during the campaign. Many of the people that would "vote for the girl" as a novelty item are the same folks that would otherwise vote for the Democrat out of sheer habit. The MSM will fawn all over her in providing one sided coverage, but how much more can they do of that than they have done? She's brighter than the average Democratic candidate, but she's not as bright as the MSM claims and she lacks her husband's blinding charisma. She'd be a tough opponent, but not an impossible one for a good conventional GOP candidate. Of course this begs the question of does the GOP have a good conventional candidate on deck at this time. George Allen, maybe. He was a pretty good Governor from what I recall. Everyone else currently posturing has two few cajones and/or two many horns.
I'd guess they might be. I just remember when the Republicans made the right decision a few years ago and refused to pass the budget because of the games the Democrats were playing. The Republicans came out on the short end of the stick because of the way the media covered the story. I'm concerned about the same effect because the media is even more riled up this time then they were then. They lost in 2000 when their candidate lost after doing just about everything they could do to help him. They lost again in 2004 when they through the rule book out in desperation. The MSM sees this as an opportunity to rectify the loss that they still don't understand. They are bitter and vindictive.
Being a conservative is an impeachable offense in the eyes of dumb liberals, like Barbara Boxer and John Conyers.
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.