Posted on 09/10/2003 8:53:47 AM PDT by PhiKapMom
Dean was scary-good last night. I fear what he'll be like if he gets the nomination and can run down the middle. I think he's the only Dem who can beat Bush.
I'm just having nightmare flashbacks to another small-state liberal who ran against an incumbent Bush-President.
This time, though, our side has learned its lessons. We got beat twice by Clinton. We're not going to be beaten by Clinton-lite (I hope).
"A presidential executive order issued during the Clinton
administration hamstrung the FBI so badly that bureau
lawyers decided it would be illegal to infiltrate Osama bin
Laden's terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, a senior
FBI official during the Clinton administration said Saturday."
(June 1, 2002)
____________________
"I don't believe 9-11 happened because of an intelligence breach," Quayle told Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes.""I think it was really a policy breach. It was the inaction of the previous administration, by and large, that al Qaeda -- and bin Laden in particular -- thought that they could hit the United States, and there would be a retaliation maybe of a cruise missile but nothing more than that," he explained.
The comments make the former vice president, who served under President Bush's father from 1989 to 1993, the highest ranking former U.S. official to suggest that the Clinton administration should get the lion's share of the blame for not preventing the 9-11 attacks.
I know what you mean. I have this weird feeling that Sharpton's a good cook and knows some really funny dirty jokes. Lieberman seems like a decent-enough guy who you can kick back and have a beer with.
But, geez, imagine being stuck on a boat with Kerry and Dean. One's boring, the other's a raging jackass.
Funniest comments of the night came from Al Sharpton, though, when he
threatened to sic some of his homeboys on the LaRouche disruptors.Hey, I'm votin' for ole Al, I tell ya !! ...
"If I can slap this donkey I can make it kick George Bush
out of the White House."--Al Sharpton
... not !!! :O)
Hey, I'm not stalking you, really! You're just hitting
on some of my favorite subjects today on this thread ...
Above is the REAL Frankenstein!
Click HERE to see the DNC's Bushenstein
(Barf Alert!)http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2002/07/20020703_a_main.asp
Listen
Howard Dean
Howard Dean says he's running for President, and on paper he's quite a candidate.
He's the longest-serving Democratic governor. He signed the first law in the country to allow gay unions. And, he's got the endorsement of America's favorite president-that-isn't: Martin Sheen.
In real life, most Americans would pass Howard Dean on the street without a second glance. Can a candidate with just about zero national name-recognition actually make a viable run for the nation's highest office? Tonight, Howard Dean, the invisible candidate.
You missed a group of lying, pandering blithering idiots! This debate was a Bush bash set up by the black caucus, using Britt Hume in a cheap attempt to add some semblance of credibility. You missed nothing.
IMHO The dims shot themselves in the foot, by putting on display, their anti-american blathering!!
It is remarkable, just stunning really, that the Dim candidates, and many other Dim Congress critters, just have no compunction or hesitation at all about telling flat-out, unequivocal lies. They even lie about the President lying by lying about what the President said, i.e. a triple lie.
In this example (but one of many) it is, first of all, CONGRESS (of which Kerry is a member!) that does the funding, not the President. Secondly, though I don't have the exact figures to hand, "leave no child behind" HAS been funded, to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars. To say it hasn't been funded, or that anyone "has refused" to fund it, is a lie. I'm not saying that it might be a lie, or there are interpretations under which it might be considered a lie; it is IN FACT a lie. There is no ambiguity at all that it is a lie. Kerry surely knows what funding has been approved (by CONGRESS!) on the matter, and he has consciously chosen to lie about it.
What Kerry apparently means (if I have this clear) is that the money appropriated in the budget did not reach the maximum amount that the bill, now law, allowed. Again, I don't remember the exact figures, but it was something along the line of the bill allowing, say, 16 billion dollars, and only 12 billion being appropriated.
All Kerry had to do was say "fully fund," which still would have been deeply misleading, but would not have been a bald, outright lie. Kerry chose to lie, and the press will never call him on it. The press repeatedly treats these unequivocal lies as if they were just matters of interpretation, or point to counterpoint. IT'S MADDENING!!!
You got it. I still remember how Gore was going to be "trounced" in the first hour of election day, and how Hillary would "never stand a chance" at the Senate. We cannot afford to underestimate Dean and the Dems, nor the sheer stupidity, gullibility, and gimme-ness of too many voters. Whenever I see predictions of a Reaganesque landslide in '04, I get very uncomfortable.
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.