Posted on 07/10/2002 11:27:06 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
This is an unofficial quick and dirty presidential poll. Apparently, there is a good sized contingent on Free Republic that believes that President Bush is:
Please list the numbers that best match the reasons you don't like Bush (or state other reasons if not on the list) and state whether you believe that President Bush should be defeated even if it means installing a Democrat in the Whitehouse.
Conversely, if you believe President Bush should be re-elected, please state why.
Please state who you would like to see win the Presidency in 2004 and whether or not you believe he/she has a chance of winning.
Thanks,
Jim
Yep, we need to vote for the lesser of evils.
I won't. I will "throw my vote away".
At least they will know I did not vote for them.
If I simply don't vote they won't know. I want them to know.
Because 'the price of liberty is eternal vigilance'. ;-)
"...Your warped view has toxified your brain and exposed your agenda. But I love it when people like you pretend they're "conservstives". Must be one of them "principled" conservatives..."
# 1125 by Deb
Are you having a little trouble staying away from personal attacks, Deb?
There is no way that Democrats would have been able to justify a vote of "not guilty" if the evidence had been presented. The political repercussions would have been too severe. In other words, the Democrats would have lost seats in Congress if they had voted to excuse Clinton's behavior, if the evidence had been presented.
Here's what you're forgetting, Deb. The Democrats didn't withhold the evidence. The Republicans did that. Republicans had a majority in the Senate; they voted to limit the evidence presented, they voted to limit the time to conduct the trial, and they voted to allow no witness testimony.
Republicans, Deb.
Republicans allowed Clinton to escape removal from office.
Republican Senators dropped the ball.
Now it's Republican President Bush's turn.
It's President Bush's duty to enforce the laws of our nation. Clinton broke the law. He broke several laws, the most severe of which were abuse of office, murder, and treason. Unlike you, I don't consider it a mark of good character on President Bush's part to let Clinton get away with it.
Perhaps so. I'm sure there is a vocal core who vote GOP for this issue, but I don't think the majority of voters are single issue.
Churchill is dead.
How do you think Gore would have voted on ESCR?
For that matter, how do you think Harry Browne would have voted on it?
If you can't get your facts straight you should consider putting a sock in it. President Bush has denounced the ICC and will not allow our troops to be subjected to it.
"He didn't even serve in Viet Nam when he had the opportunity. Air National Guard in Texas during the Viet Nam War is good enough for the Mail Man who delivers my letters or even for the Dentist who fills my teeth. But it is a little shy of the mark for one aspires to command our military. Just MHO"
A DU disruptor couldn't have slandered the President any better
"I am currently incapable of worshiping Bush. Ask me again when he has spoken out loudly and plainly to defend the unborn, support the second amendment, defend our national sovereignty."
Another baseless claim
You must be a Libertarian
How many Republican House members voted to impeach?
How many Senate Democrats voted to convict?
How many Senate Republicans voted to convict?
How many votes were required to convict?
Who told David Shippers that the Democrats would be voting in a block against conviction no matter what evidence was presented or how many witnesses testified?
Why not be honest and admit you're here to trash the Republicans and no matter what they do or say, you are determined to misrepresent it? You people need to be flushed, but the forum must be outta TP.
Oh, MY GOODNESS!!
You don't know palo verde, do you?
Huh?
This had nothing to do with X42 having "Republican friends." Lott was right when he said that the 67 votes needed to convict just weren't there. Snowe, Specter, Jeffords, and other NE GOP Senators just wouldn't have voted to convict.
I don't remember the exact count of Pubs and RATS at that time, but, I believe a RAT or two would have had to vote to convict as well. That was not going to happen.
Or maybe he would govern as he speaks.
I reckon you don't belive folks won't do what they say.
I do believe Allan Keyes and Ron Paul will do what they say.
Ron Paul has proved it on the floor of the house.
I sure wish we could vote for him.
I keep wondering if some of them really LIKE being the minority party....
..sort of like a fear of success.
redrock
Go Read THIS ANNOUNCEMENT and retract your un-informed remark above
And voting for 3rd party candidates in whom you know don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning won't "move the country right," either. The "wake up call" that you think would happen if enough voted for 3rd party or write-in candidates is simply wishful thinking.
I think so.
Not really, no. But Harry Browne has spoken out against waging the war on terror, and when someone expresses a preference for him, I have to assume they like that. It's a pretty big issue, after all.
I agree with you.
You do understand how the system works, don't you? Give those guys a Senate controlled by Tom Daschle and company, and see how far they get.
And as for Keyes, talk is cheap.
I'm gonna have a bruise on my forehead tonight from pounding my head on this desk.
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.