Replies

Does Bush have a mandate for such a thing? No. I love it how people here at FR forget that Bush won a minority of the popular vote. If you want such action to occur, you have to elect people that win a majority of the votes cast (for Congress and the WH).

America doesn't want to see Clintoon treated like some dictator from a Banana Republic. I hate Clintoon as much as you-- I really do, but it would be irresponsible of him to do this and it would be a monumental distraction guaranteed to lose the House this fall for the GOP.

Do you want Charlie Rangel to chair the House Ways and Means Committee? Do you want Nancy Pelosi as Majority Leader? How about Domestic and International Monetary Policy Subcommittee (of Banking) chair Maxine Waters and vice-chair Barney Frank? Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers and vice-chair Barney Frank? Vice-chair of the Constitution subcommittee (of Judiciary) Maxine Waters-- has she even read the document?

Only 6 seats stand in the way of that happening. This isn't a country of Tom DeLays. The country would hurt the GOP just like in 1998 and 2000.

I went back and read the entire article in USA Today. Clinton sent George H.Bush to state funerals, so there is precedence. On further reflection, this may not be a bad move-as long as it is an isolated one.It makes GW look like the bigger man and you can't overlook the irony of sending Clinton to someplace most people can't find on a map.

Does Bush have a mandate for such a thing? No. I love it how people here at FR forget that Bush won a minority of the popular vote. If you want such action to occur, you have to elect people that win a majority of the votes cast (for Congress and the WH).

You show me in the Constitution or ANYWHERE where it says the President has to have a "mandate" before he upholds the laws of this land. You show me ANYWHERE where it says the President must POLL THE PUBLIC before investigating crimes as serious as election tampering, blackmail of Congress, treason, murder and mass murder.

America doesn't want to see Clintoon treated like some dictator from a Banana Republic. I hate Clintoon as much as you-- I really do, but it would be irresponsible of him to do this and it would be a monumental distraction guaranteed to lose the House this fall for the GOP.

So if Bush can ignore our laws (and in so doing say leaders and party leadership are immune from our laws) because he believes it is political expedient for his party, how is he any different than a DICTATOR? How can you be sure that he won't decide that it is in the country's interest to do just what Clinton and the democRATS did ... break laws and cover those misdeeds up? You stand on the edge of a chasm.

Do you want Charlie Rangel to chair the House Ways and Means Committee? Do you want Nancy Pelosi as Majority Leader? How about Domestic and International Monetary Policy Subcommittee (of Banking) chair Maxine Waters and vice-chair Barney Frank? Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers and vice-chair Barney Frank? Vice-chair of the Constitution subcommittee (of Judiciary) Maxine Waters-- has she even read the document?

Well first of all, IF Bush investigates the crimes and prosecutes those who committed them, this will make the bloodbath Republicans suffered after Watergate look like a day in the park. Exhume Brown's body and autopsy it ... find traces of a bullet wound ... and the democRAT party is going to be running for cover. Prove that democRATS took illegal money from Riady, claimed they returned it, and didn't and democRATS will be running for cover. Show that information from the FBI files is still in democRAT hands and that Ken Starr was a democRAT plant ... and you will DESTROY the democRAT party. You won't even have to fight them in the next several elections.

Only 6 seats stand in the way of that happening. This isn't a country of Tom DeLays. The country would hurt the GOP just like in 1998 and 2000.

Pluck pluck pluck. Chicken Feed. So we IGNORE the law to do this. Then how are we ANY different than the democRATS?