Posted on 12/21/2001 6:52:48 PM PST by LSUsoph
Dick Cheney due to health reasons decides to withdrawl his name from the ticket in 2004 after a very successful term as Vice President. He figures he can still stay close to the President and advise him in any way possible, but not have to deal with the every day hustle of being the Vice-President of the country. So who would President Bush pick to be his new VP? I think Condi Rice would be a wonderful choice but I dont know if this country (especially the Republican Party) is ready for a VP who is black, a woman, and from the South (Alabama). I also love Powell but would he and Pres Bush be able to work hand in hand as P-VP? Donald Rumsfeld is a terrific Sec of Defense and I think he would make a great President one day...maybe him being VP could lead us to 8 great years of a Rumsfeld Presidency after 8 great years of Bush. Other candidates that come to mind would be Tom Ridge, Liddy Dole, Ashcroft, and dare i say it...JOHN MCCAIN ( i know, i know, but i think the Bush-MCcain ticket would be a shoe in). My pick would have to be Rice, she is worth her weight in Gold. She is a genius, works well with Bush, and would really be great for the country. And what would the naysayers say after Bush nominates a black woman to be his right hand WOMman?? I think they would just have to throw up the white flag! GO DUBYA!
You can bet your sweet petooties it's a compliment, honey! I love a man with real, honest to goodness, PRINCIPLES!
Would it be even worth reminding you that legal abortions nationally have been legal for barely 30 years?? Should our veterans, pastors, and priests "get the Hell out of Dodge" now because someone changed a law which violates a deeply held and, I might add, traditionally supported, moral law?
Why is it that a view which for MOST of my mother's lifetime (she is 68) was considered unTHINKable and immoral is now labeled sane, and those who continue to hand down the Truth of God are now labeled "unfit"?
The service of those of us (I include myself) who are involved in the nation's defense, and the prior service of those who fought and bled in early times comes to this? Just a "shut up, idiot, with your 'pro-life' ranting and get the HELL out of the country you fought for"??
I beg to differ on your estimation of the sane or insane on this issue.
And what of "good leaders"? In some of our "insane" minds, a good leader is one who stands uncompromisingly for what is right, not for what is currently in vogue. Some of us hold the outdated, passe, and now "insane" and "unfit" reasoning that a nation that will not obey the God who has blessed her can't overcome even one man in the desert.
:o)
We must stand UNITED on the ENTIRE conservative agenda,,, not just the parts that appeal to the middle of the roaders.. in doing that we tell people that its OKAY to be LUKEWARM.. and not Hot or Cold..
Honey, maybe you better read a little more carefully, or party a little less. ;^)
IMHO third parties stand to lose more than they gain.. I have often said publicly that I believe the best way to pull the GOP to the right is from the INSIDE !!
We must clearly distinguish ourselves from the communist agenda of the left and get generation X in on the fight, on one side or the other..
I didn't get the impression that anyone was talking about a choice between a candidate who is TOTALLY left EXCEPT for a pro-life stand and a candidate who is totally right EXCEPT for a pro-choice stand.
I think what some are saying is that given a RANGE of choices between Repubs who are pro-choice but otherwise superb and Repubs who are pro-life but maybe not so "broadly supported" some of us would vote for the latter.(GASP! WHEEZE! THE HORRORS!!)
Incidentally, does principle even MATTER anymore?? All I hear about are "ways to win". And please don't trot out the tired logic of "accommodating" to win so you can slooooooooowly implement your "real" agenda. That is just contemporary spin on an old concept--COMPROMISE. As another has pointed out earlier in the thread, to some of us, differing on abortion is not like differing on the level of tax cuts, it's the difference between wickedness and righteousness.
It is quite impossible to reach people who are out of touch with reality. Look around at the arguments being offered by these people. They offer no facts, no logic, no tangible debate points. All you see is emotional statements. Emotional statements and personal attacks.
How many decades has this losing battle been going on? ROE Vs Wade was soooo long ago, I forgot.
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.