Free Republic

'"Viva Cheney!"

I agree. Cheney has served this nation all his life and we're fortunate to have had him serve in that respect.
However, he has said he isn't running in 2008. That leaves a vacuum. A vacuum Hillary is aiming to fill. Hillary is a hardcore socialist. Not someone who should occupy the White House.'

Frist would beat the stuffings out of her for the WH in 2008. Hillary is wildly unpopular, even among her own party's most avid.

"Speaking of Hillary, I just saw a 5 second clip on CBS of her face while being interviewed. CBS used a camera filter to "soften" her features. You know, the type that make people look slightly smudgy. The MSM wants her in 2008. Make no mistake about that."

Thankfully the MSM no longer has a monopoly on information in the USA anymore. The blogs are now in control and most strongly reflect the opinion of the grass roots. And as you can see from the Dem blogs, they don't like Hillary within their own party-- it's bloodsport there.

"Everyone keeps talking about Hillary's stance on illegal immigration. What is it?"

"Her way of putting a "stop" to it would be exactly like her husband's: declare them all legal. That takes care of that "illegal" part."

Exactly true. Hillary's supposed anti-illegal immigration stance was mere playing to the camera and gullible media types-- in case it hasn't been noticed, she simultaneously dances with all the pro-immigration ethnic organizations that give mucho dinero to the Dems *and* has refused to do anything concrete in her status as a legislator unlike eg Tancredo. She has no intention of doing anything to combat illegal immigration, nor any intention of reducing the unsustainably high (more than a million/year) legal immigration levels we have from chain migration. Anyone who trusts a word she says is hopelessly gullible.

"If Hillary runs in 08, which she probably will, the Republicans have to run Rice or someone with similar demographic appeal. I don't think that's the way to get the most qualified person into the highest office on earth, but it would keep Hillary from that office."

No, they don't. Why are Freepers of all people, who should know much better, so full of trepidation about Hillary? She's wildly unpopular within her own party (look at the Dem blogs among other places), she'd fill the campaign coffers for our candidates within a month of announcing her candidancy, swing voters mistrust her-- all she has now is name recognition, and that wears off fast. The Dems absolutely do not want her to be the nominee in '08.

And this "similar demographic appeal" thing is a myth-- in a national election people really don't care all that much about the demographic status of a candidate, ultimately they vote for those who most agree with their values, most put together a good platform, and most demonstrate that they have enough experience. Race and gender may start out as factors but they dissolve soon after that and become secondary. (Most women really don't care as much about the candidate's gender as some people seem to think-- we care most about people who address issues important to us like education and the security of our children in this great nation. You're falling for classic Democratic tricks.)

As I said in my other post, Rice is a terrific Secretary of State and has a bright future in public service ahead of her, but she'd be terrible as a nominee for the GOP. The lack of elected experience is a big problem-- only Eisenhower in recent years overcame that, and he was the leader of multiple armies in the most massive war of the 20th century. But Rice is also pro-choice and pro-affirmative action. I don't want my kids to grow up in an America where abortion is still as easy as getting drive-thru fast food, or where they'll be discriminated against for "not being an underrepresented minority" or somesuch. The GOP heartland would just stay home in droves if Rice were nominated. Don't pay attention to all the hype and hoopla-- that's just a formula for electoral disaster.

'Hillary is smart as a whip, but without Bill to guide her, she's an ingenue.'

Bill isn't doing too much guiding these days and probably won't. Based on the sort of surgery he had and his continuing problems, even slight stresses can be dangerous to the heart. He's probably getting some much-deserved rest from all the campaigns.

"Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Van Buren, and Buchanan were all Secretary of State before being elected President. (In Van Buren's case, he was SoS for part of Jackson's first term, then VP for Jackson's second term.) For a while that seemed to be the natural stepping-stone to the Presidency, which may be part of the reason for Jackson's anger when JQA made Henry Clay Secretary of State, after Clay had helped JQA win the election in the House of Representatives."

But every single one of those Secy. of State-turned Presidents were also elected multiple times to the House and/or Senate before running for President (and/or were elected to serve in the Constitutional Convention, for Madison and Monroe). Condi has the Secy. of State credentials but has never served in elected office.

I love Condi as Secy. of State, I think she's a great representative of our country, but she just wouldn't do as our nominee. The lack of electoral experience is one problem, but she's also pro-abortion *and* pro-affirmative action. Those are two of the things (along with massive uncontrolled immigration) that are destroying the United States, and it's a big reason that so many people have become Republicans in the past five years. The vast majority of GOP and independent that I know-- men and women, multiple races-- would not vote for Condi. Nor would I. She's excellent in the Cabinet, but not a particularly good idea as a nominee.

Typical Hillary-- offering up a "duh" statement that the MSM just eats it up like a sundae with hot fudge on top. Ooh, and the timing, classical crass Hillary opportunism at work.

As one who used to affiliate with Dem circles, I can tell you that all this hype about a Hillary nomination is way overrated. She is deeply unpopular with the core of the Democratic Party, she's regularly thrashed over at the Dem blogs and any polls favorable to her so far are only a reflection of name recognition-- Lieberman after all was the "frontrunner" before Johnny K. in 2004 and, I guess you could say he has a nice career in the private sector now.

Hillary has a better shot at the Dem nod than Lieberman did, and she is a contender for it, but a far weaker contender than a lot of Freepers think. Of all the ironies, most Dems seem to agree with most of us these days about her-- she's too unscrupulous and treacherous to be trusted. Even among young single liberal Democratic women she inspires distrust and dislike.

These days the Dems seem to be converging around Barbara Boxer as there nominee, or maybe Evan Bayh or Warner. But Hillary is in no way a frontrunner-- she's already in hot water and getting worse every day.

"I would not be underestimating Hillary. She is probably the odds on favorite to be our next president."

Then you're misestimating (misoverestimating?). I can tell you as someone who used to hobnob in Dem circles and who still has many Dem acquaintances that she is extremely unpopular within the core of the Dem party. She's managed to alienate just about everyone in there with some of her stands, and the rest of her country with her other stands. Depending on how effective a campaign Giuliani (or Colin Powell?) runs against Hillary in NY, she may even lose her Senate seat.

"Los Angeles is a more complicated place than San Francisco."

You've got that right. L.A. is a bewildering confusing place, it's own nation in many ways. A bit too exciting for me and just about anyone else who wants to have a normal workday.

Sorry for the double post...

Denmark has already made such reductions IIRC.

Denmark has already made such reductions IIRC.

Not just illegal immigration that's the problem, it's that over 1 million or so 'chain migrants' are allowed in legally every year. This has to be reduced heavily down to maybe 1-200,000 or so. I guess the law could make a "special case" for Mexican migrants since they work in the fields and are so important for the region's economy, but otherwise the numbers of people allowed in have to be way cut down. The inflows are not sustainable right now, and we're just opening ourselves up to terrorism.

I used to live out on the Left Coast and my most distinct association with the region was being stuck in 2-hour traffic jams every day in California's cities. One of the reasons I went GOP in the first place. Probably best to help spread democracy into countries sending so many people here, rather than blindly flinging open our doors like this. This doesn't have to be controversial or "split the party" either-- just use common sense and fix a number for admittees that's lower than the one we currently use.

"Keyes, a lifelong nudist, wore a necklace, earrings and a black leather "genital bracelet" with red studs."

Ouch... Plenty of comments going through my mind but... nah, think I'll pass.