Posted on 04/04/2007 9:13:51 AM PDT by Hostage
The most fundamental question, against which the President's actions must be measured, is `what constitutes an impeachable offense?' The Constitution makes impeachable `treason, bribery and other high crimes or misdemeanors.' The Constitution also says that upon conviction in the Senate the President `shall be removed.' Therefore, the questions becomes, in effect, `what actions constitute grounds for removal?'
(Excerpt) Read more at australianpolitics.com ...
She generally does, bless her heart! I just find ‘em and drag ‘em in here and let an expert process them. :)
1. He's John McCain's close friend.
2. He can't beat Hillary.
3. Democrats would walk all over him.
4. He has no executive experience.
5. He's not a Christian.
6. He can't win states like OH, FL, and Penn.
7. He doesn't have the stomach for DC politics.
8. He's too: fat, bald, old.
9. His wife is: too young, skanky.
Did I miss any????
Ugh.
I agree. He’s going to let the Rudy campaign implode, and when the all the attention goes to Rudy’s skeletons, Fred will jump in.
Interesting. When I was reading that article I was reminded of Lincoln's Cooper Union address. Not for the topic of course, but for the fine-tuned application of logic to a political problem.
I heard that the real reason he didn't run for reelection as Senator is because he has many friends in Congress, and the longer he stayed there the more criminal behavior he was becoming aware of, and he did not want to be in a position of having to go after his friends.
As for his relaxed approach to campaigning, he always won with 60% of the vote or better.
In my mind, it's results that count, not appearances.
WHAT!?!
Fred Thompson is not even running! Mitt Romney is a "Conservatives conservative" and he is raising more cash than anyone else! So what if he has no real support among the Conservative Republican base, you're remarks are bigotted and Mormo-phobic!
/sarcasm off
I think Fred Thompson would CRUSH any democratic opponent.
After the first televised debate, it would be over.
Thank you. Yes indeed, the parallels are there.
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm
The manner in which this article is written suggests that Freb could not have possibly been an ACTOR!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Exactly! As presently administered, the American ?justice” system,is no longer just.
It just struck me as funny that most of our elected officials could probably be impeached for it today, and ironic that they will cover each others asses over it and because of it (like Newt just did for Jefferson). But don't worry, I won't post on your threads anymore.
The corruption in DC is important and you were right to bring it up. The corruption is always there to some degree. Right now it is very pervasive. I don’t believe it can be eliminated but it can be minimized.
So you raised an important point but I was hoping you would chime in with some meaty comments about FDT’s current view on DC corruption.
One other poster on this thread made an important observation that one of the reasons FDT left Washington (in addition to grieving his daughter’s death) was because he saw corruption among his friends and colleagues in the GOP, and as a corruption fighter he would have to prosecute them.
It’s interesting to note that fighting corruption is a common tie between FDT and Guliani. I think they would make a formidable duo. Of course Guliani as VP or AG is my view of the order.
He’s also Lamar Alexander’s “best friend”. And Bill Frist’s. And....
If Giuliani is in the VP slot, I am OFF the Thompson bandwagon. I will NOT put that man that close to the Presidency, under ANY circumstances.
Yes, he is smart man. I didn’t realize the link would be so long.
I’ll be dissapointed if he never runs.
I might put Rudy as head of the FBI or Director of Homeland Security. But not VP. Or President.
Other than his personal baggage and his past support for some obscene liberal policies, what is it that makes you so against him?
From my experience in NYC (I had a relative in Manhattan and have travelled there frequently on business) he transformed that city like a miracle worker. He also fought corruption successfully. I give him credit for that. The rest to me is just an NYC mindset that thrives in a culture that provides itself on being ‘street tough’ and tolerant of all cultures (including gay).
But please do fill me in on your view. I may change my mind about Guliani as VP, but AG? Why not?
Did you read what you wrote?
“Other than his past support for some OBSCENE liberal policies”??
Right now his California radio spokesperson is Bill Lockyer. He’s a leftist Dem, and rabidly anti-gun. Giuliani has actually taken guns out of law abiding citizen’s hands.
He used public money to pay for a cadre of SIX $100K+ a year bodyguards so they could drive HIS MISTRESS to the beauty parlor. That’s outrageous.
He recently garnered Forbes’ endorsement...by switching sides on the flat tax.
He said he would pay for his own grandchild to be murdered.
Oh, and that “fiscal conservative” stuff is garbage, too.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1811569/posts?page=87#87
He is dangerous, and I won’t vote for him under any circumstances.
You have a point. But I think anyone coming from NYC is going to be influenced by the obscene liberalism that is entrenched there. That’s why I would never vote for him for President.
But you are right, having him in the VP slot is too risky.
What about AG?
Fine with me. If he’s under the control of someone I trust, I can live with it.
Personally I think Fred was disgusted with his “fellow politicos”....And also knew “it” wasn’t gonna stick on the rapist. No matter the evidence..............
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.