It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

page: 34
15
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 03:21 AM
link   
I'm not at all plesed to see the party of my choice going down in flames. the more I learn about how to self-promote, the more I question other people's authority. In the democratic sense, I do think there is a moral imperative when it comes to government. That moral imperative, to me, boils down to just one thing. Do no harm. I respect the Constitution and the limits it originally placed on Federal authority. I see the need for many of the ammendments that have been added. I really do think that the FEderal government is significantly beyond its mandate.

That's why I wrote my first book after leaving Federal service. It's more than a good story to me. It;s an encapsulation of what I believe. I have yet to meet the ideological liberal who could embrace it. For that reason, I pay much closer attention to what the opposition says when I debate. I wish that my fellow Republicans could be so circumspect. Opposition does not always mean 'wrong.' The GOP's slavish loyalty to a 'wrong' President will cost them dearly.

I learned one great truth in my college career, which I sharpened during my stint as a writer. Most ideas about just about any subject you can name transcend ideology. Right is right and wrong really is wrong. That's why we call it that...instead of something else.

[edit on 18-7-2007 by Justin Oldham]




posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   

posted by Justin Oldham
I'm not at all pleased to see the party of my choice going down in flames. the more I learn about how to self-promote, the more I question other people's authority. In the democratic sense, I do think there is a moral imperative when it comes to government. That moral imperative, to me, boils down to just one thing. Do no harm. I respect the Constitution and the limits it originally placed on Federal authority. I see the need for many of the amendments that have been added. I really do think that the Federal government is significantly beyond its mandate.

That's why I wrote my first book after leaving Federal service. It's more than a good story to me. It’s an encapsulation of what I believe. I have yet to meet the ideological liberal who could embrace it. For that reason, I pay much closer attention to what the opposition says when I debate. I wish that my fellow Republicans could be so circumspect. Opposition does not always mean 'wrong.' The GOP's slavish loyalty to a 'wrong' President will cost them dearly. I learned one great truth in my college career, which I sharpened during my stint as a writer. Most ideas about just about any subject you can name transcend ideology. Right is right and wrong really is wrong. That's why we call it that...instead of something else.


Well for sure we are all not perfect. I still remember my own first response to Brown v. Topeka, the landmark case that opened America’s eyes to the evil it was doing to African Americans. Every horrid concoction of devious minds driven by race hate and greed had raised barriers denying to any black person ever feeling the pride and accomplishment in self-fulfillment. Most of the rest of us tagged along as the silent majority for the slight advantage being white gave us over being black.

In Louisville, where there was barely a scintilla of moderation but which we self congratulated how “understanding” we were, our city funded University of Louisville admitted blacks to the 4 year program around 1949. By 2000, I must be the only white person in Louisville who knew and cared about the former site where 2 smallish 3 story yellow brick buildings were discreetly labeled by a wooden painted sign, “Louisville College.” Our concession to Plessey’s “Separate but Equal” satisfies the US Con. Located at the fringe of the West End, where most of the city’s blacks were confined, I say “confined” because neither landlords nor banks would assist blacks to leave the neighborhood.

I conceded, in 1954, that there was some merit in Brown, but that I must oppose its outcome and enforcement on the grounds that the Supreme Court had reached its decision improperly. The plaintiffs had relied on the doctrine of “necessity” to support the right of a child to attend the closest school. In practice that would have put 90% of black children in formerly all white schools. The morally bankrupt opponents continued to rely on the 1896 Plessey v. Ferguson case that put the nation’s’s approving imprimatur on the cruel doctrine of “separate but equal” complies with the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Instead, the Supreme Court, under Earl Warren, unanimously held that Plessey was wrongfully decided, and that “separate ” is inherently UNEQUAL. Thereby Plessey was overturned. As for the integration of the public schools, it was said by the Court it must proceed with “all deliberate speed.” Which of course it did not, thereby bringing the Burger Court to the use of bussing to resolve Southern racist-driven recalcitrance. I think I came to see the light during my tours of duty in the Air Force. When you work with people on a daily basis, you begin to learn they are really not different from yourself. As a technical school instructor at Keesler AFB MS by 1956, I had to treat all my students equally and with respect. I had no difficulty in doing that. It was my job. I date my eureka moment as being in 1956. Was it an epiphany? I’m not sure. It did not happen all at once. Bur gradually. Based on my own personal experience, I have asserted here and elsewhere that any white person born before 1954 is prejudiced. Or was. But what’s that got to do with electing a Conservative as president of the US of A? Maybe by inference, to say there is nothing wroing with conservatives wh also have charity in their souls. We can all do better, if we try.

[edit on 7/18/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I'm actually quite confident that the conservative political presence in Amerca will change. I think it may be forced to split in to secular and theological branches, but it will change. First...however...it will have to be reforged from its broken pieces. That process isn't going to be fun to watch. If I had to hang a lebel on it, I'd suspect that university types may call it post-industrial conservatism. If the GOP does not spawn a new party for the religious right, it may very well take steps to purge its platform of theological compoentents in much the same way that the Democrats have done over the last half century.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Where to now for Rudy ?
From what I have read poll wise Rudy popularity has fallen and he is yet to energize or gain traction with the Republican base.
So what are Rudy options ?
Here are what I think is options are.


  1. Do nothing and hope for the best .
  2. Stay in the campaign but fire the current crop of advisor's and hire new ones. This is an option if Hillary doesn't have all the best political wizards locked up already.
  3. Leave the race.
  4. Leave the race and endorse another candidate . Look for ways to build upon record as mayor perhaps run for governor or just find ways to gain traction with the Republican base.


The first option would seem to be foolhardy at this stage .
The second option would be the wisest if Rudy wants to remain in the race which I assume that he does. Its not like Rudy is going to run out of steam to soon the firebox as barley been lit.
The third option would require some personal circumstances such an ill family member in order to avoid any political damage.
The last option would have to be managed well in political terms but could preserve Rudy candidacy for an future run. If Fred runs and Rudy was looking for an politically smart way out then Fred or some other candidate could provide this.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I recent poll shows that none of the GOP candidates are getting traction. A majority of poll respondents were "undecided." that's not good, and it does leave room for a Republican defeat that is soooo bad that Bush decides to use it as a "crisis" to stay in office while the election fraud is investigated. I don't really that will happened, but it is a conspiracy theory and this is ATS.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 02:38 AM
link   
IMO the danger lies not in the possibility of Bush remaining in office but what will happen when someone like Ron Paul has an real chance of claiming the government back from corporate interests and putting the interests of the American People first.

It would be unwise to underestimate how far the establishment would go when it comes to maintaining there current racquet. I am looking into this matter at the moment and seeing if I can put anything together.

[edit on 23-7-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   
The Republican national committee needs to understand what's in their future if they fail to get their act together in '08. 2009 stands to be a hard year for the GOP if the Dems are allowed to conduct their planned counter-attacks without any coordinated opposition from the Republicans.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Well I have seen nothing to indicate that the trends and general consensus that has been discussed and reached on this thread will change any time soon.

One interesting thing occurred is that the only presidential candidate to my knowledge to have visited Iraq is McCain and he was pretty much force to by his own hand . Non of the candidates on either side of the fence of the fence have visited the all important front on the War on Terror Afghanistan.

IMO not visiting the front line doesn't reflect well on the leadership qualities of the candidates. I guess due to the security situations would mean that the candidates wouldn't gain sufficient PR mileage out of such an visit.


I would like to offer this quote from Al Gore concerning the Vietnam war I think that it could equally apply to the war in Iraq.



Gore said in 1988 that his experience in Vietnam:

didn't change my conclusions about the war being a terrible mistake, but it struck me that opponents to the war, including myself, really did not take into account the fact that there were an awful lot of South Vietnamese who desperately wanted to hang on to what they called freedom. Coming face to face with those sentiments expressed by people who did the laundry and ran the restaurants and worked in the fields was something I was naively unprepared for


source



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   
I'd have to check in to that. I think other candidates have gone to Iraq. I'm just not sure who. I for one who like to see the GOP have a YouTube style debate. I like that last one, even though I do know they screened the questions. Go, populism!

by the way...did anyone see Alberto's latest testimony before Congress?



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   
A while ago I saw an clip on the TV news of Bush speaking in the after mouth of 9-11 and then it struck me after seeing the News item when it comes to the Iraq issue Bush has never struck me has having the same conviction when it comes to the Iraq issue despite the perceived threat.

The only time Bush seem to have any conviction on the Iraq issue was when he pretty much stated that if you didn't support the war you are against Freedom and that is when I started to go off the Bush admin.

Other then McCain who's campaign looks to be as good as dead do any of the Republican candidates have any real conviction when they support the war in Iraq or do they support they war because there party has forced it self into a corner ?

Ron Paul is naturally excluded from the question.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   
In this case, I would have to say that the Republicans chose badly. Democrats and Republicans alike carry water for their team as a matter of tradition and political fact. when in the minority, its the leading and most popular of a political party that gets to set the agenda. When in the majority, the agenda is set by the President (as applicable) and the national committee.

When a member of your party is a sitting President, they are traditionaly thought of as the 'head' of your party. that's how its currrently done here in America. In this case, Mr. Bush has been able to use his traditional standing to over-rule the national committee. Forthose who don't know, the national committee for the GOP and the Dems is generally credited with being a sort of ideological brain trust.

When FDR got us in to WW2, The Dems had to carry the water for that conflict, and it was hard. They were slaves to it in much that same way that Bush and the Republicans are today. Same way for Truman and that little fracus in Korea. LBJ and Nixon in Vietnam. It's hard for national political figures to admit that they were wrong. We, the common, are expected to admit our mistakes and move on. They on the other hand, are much more vulnerable to the sin of pride.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   

posted by Xpert11
Other then McCain who's campaign looks to be as good as dead do any of the Republican candidates have any real conviction when they support the war in Iraq or do they support they war because there party has forced it self into a corner? Ron Paul is naturally excluded from the question.


It is traditional to support the party’s sitting president. America’s fixed terms have done us much harm in this instance. The only similar incident in my memory is Nixon’s Watergate debacle. Re-elected in 1972, Nixon resigned in 1974. Had he remained in office, it would have taken the better part of 1 year to bring him before the Senate on impeachment charges. Because the US Con requires a 2/3rds vote to convict, it is never a sure bet. Today for example, 34 senators could block a successful impeachment of Bush or Cheney.

Ron Paul remains at a consistent 1% voter approval rating.


posted by Justin Oldham
When FDR got us in to WW2, The Dems had to carry the water for that conflict, and it was hard. They were slaves to it in much that same way that Bush and the Republicans are today. Same way for Truman and that little fracas in Korea. LBJ and Nixon in Vietnam. It's hard for national political figures to admit that they were wrong. We, the common, are expected to admit our mistakes and move on. They on the other hand, are much more vulnerable to the sin of pride.


J/O is a keen observer and an astute commentator. OTOH, I generally give credit to Tojo and Emperor Hirohito with getting the US into War 2. Pearl Harbor. And Hitler declared war on the US on his own. I don’t believe the Dems had any water to carry on that.

Truman’s quick decision to back the UN Charter and to stop aggression before it got a good start may have saved us from a rerun of World War 2 which started with Nazi aggression in Poland. The GOP disingenuously railed at the Dems when Truman stopped in Korea at the point the UN Resolutions fixed. I think Truman was always a man who carried his own water.

Sadly, LBJ inched his way into Vietnam and excessive hubris would not let him quit as the French had done at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. In the 1968 election Nixon promised to end the war in 1969, but he and Henry “The K” Kissinger lied to the American people. The two of them kept the war and killing going until 1974, during which time 22,000 Americans went KIA. And a million Vietnamese. Thank you Mr Kissinger, and Machiavelli reincarnated you are not. Bush43 looks more and more like Nixon

[edit on 7/29/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
When a member of your party is a sitting President, they are traditionaly thought of as the 'head' of your party. that's how its currrently done here in America.


This thread never fails to hold my interest .
Justin comments about the President being traditionally thought of as the 'head' of your party could be interpreted as the British parliamentary system in drag until you stumble upon the fact that the President doesn't need his or party to have a majority in order to govern.



When FDR got us in to WW2, The Dems had to carry the water for that conflict, and it was hard. They were slaves to it in much that same way that Bush and the Republicans are today. Same way for Truman and that little fracus in Korea. LBJ and Nixon in Vietnam.


I cant remembered if I commented on Truman keeping UN forces on a leash in Korea on this thread or in an thread elsewhere on AP. Anyway FDR was the best of the war time leaders that were mentioned above even when you factor in social changes and the move to a voluntary military. While I'm no fan of Truman policy in Korea and the outcome of that war his actions dont compare to the later blunders of LBJ and Bush.

The end of the Korean War does have some relevance today in terms of the partisan hacks that accuse the Dems of being defeatists. What many of the right wing partisan hacks forgot is that Ike put an end to the war in Korea without achieving victory. Now the are two reasons Ike has escaped such mud slinging the first is his record as a five star general in Europe. The second reason is simply selective memory.

There is no one on either side of the political divide in the US that has anything near Ike record and so we have the current situation.

Sure some former generals aren't always cut for the political world Powell would seem to be an example he seem to lack a back bone when it counted and he made the poor choice of severing the Bush admin to begin with.

[edit on 30-7-2007 by xpert11]

In post war Japan MacArthur was smart enough to retain Hirohito as a sort figure head much like the Queen of England is to commonwealth countries. Of course Hirohito played ball and avoid being tried as an war crimnal. When people compare the future of Iraq to that of post war Japan they fail to grasp that there is no Hirohito in Iraq. Don I think that in post war Japan the Americans were also selective about who could run for office mind you MacArthur could also ban journalists from entering the country and the media was subject to censorship.

[edit on 30-7-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   

posted by xpert11
This thread never fails to hold my interest . Justin comments about the President being traditionally thought of as the 'head' of your party could be interpreted as the British parliamentary system in drag until you stumble upon the fact that the President doesn't need his or party to have a majority in order to govern.


The president is designated a the Chief Magistrate, or administrator of the central government. As a practical matter, which we are now witnessing, you are right, X11. OTOH, the US Con provides that the Congress alone can appropriate money. The Congress did finally cut off funding to Vietnam, but it was not done until 1975, the last US serviceman having departed in 1974.


While I'm no fan of Truman policy in Korea and the outcome of that war his actions don’t compare to the later blunders of LBJ and Bush. The end of the Korean War does have some relevance today in terms of the partisan hacks that accuse the Dems of being defeatists. What many of the right wing partisan hacks forgot is that Ike put an end to the war in Korea without achieving victory. Now the are two reasons Ike has escaped such mud slinging the first is his record as a five star general in Europe. The second reason is simply selective memory.


Truman. In Context. War 2 ended in September, 1945. The UN dates its existence from 1946. The Truman Doctrine vis a vis Greece and Turkey was 1947. The Berlin Airlift was in 1948-49. Mao Zedong defeated Chiang Kai Chek in 1949. The Communists threatened to win the next Italian election. Communists led general strikes in France. The Soviets had walked out of the UN Security Council in the middle of 1950.

When North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950, Truman immediately ordered US troops to South Korea and sought UN resolutions rebuking the North Koreans. MacArthur who was the darling of the Right Wing of the Republican who saw himself running in 1952, wanted to atom bomb the new PRC, the Communist government of China. The Ruskies had exploded their own A-bomb in 1949 but they did not have any means to deliver it to the United States. I could go on, I won’t but I will end by saying what Truman in 1950 did was lawful and correct. You have more or less agreed, X11.

Achieving victory was never US official policy. Achieving status quo ante was our policy. It was just not politically expedient in 1952 for Truman to accept what Eisenhower accepted in 1953. Which truce line has held for 54 years! So who was right? Truman or the pro-MacArthur war-mongers?



In post war Japan MacArthur was smart enough to retain Hirohito as a sort figure head much like the Queen of England is to commonwealth countries. Of course Hirohito played ball and avoid being tried as an war criminal. When people compare the future of Iraq to that of post war Japan they fail to grasp that there is no Hirohito in Iraq. Don I think that in post war Japan the Americans were also selective about who could run for office mind you MacArthur could also ban journalists from entering the country and the media was subject to censorship.


Right on all counts, Mr X11. But 1945 Japan differed from 2003 Iraq. There had been a growing democratic tradition in Japan since the Russo-Japan War of 1905-07. The proto-fascists in the Japan Army - not found in the Japan Navy - murdered most of the democratic opponents in the Diet. 1930 Japan might have been in a period comparable to that which led to the Glorious Revolution of England in 1688. But alas, it was not to be. Gregory Peck played MacArthur in 1977 as George Scott had played Patton in 1970.

[edit on 7/30/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Well, then. I'm glad that I cna be so entertaining. I've been doing a little homework regarding Fred Thomspon, and I know suspect that he is waiting 'til the end of September to make his grand entrace. I think he may have been talking to Newt about that guerilla campaign option that Mr. G has been going on about so much over the last year.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   

posted by Justin Oldham
I've been doing a little homework regarding Fred Thompson and I now suspect that he is waiting 'til the end of September to make his grand entrance. I think he may have been talking to Newt about that guerilla campaign option that Mr. G has been going on about so much over the last year.


On Giuliani and guerillas, J/O, please elaborate for my benefit. The Iowa caucus is January 14, and it will take a lot of footwork for Thompson to beat Julie who has been spending nearly half his time there. As #1 in the popular rankings, it is imperative that Juilie win in Iowa and NH, too. Fred OTOH, as a late comer can stay around awhile provided he makes what is described as a “credible” showing. I take it that means no worse a finish than third. If Julie gets 45% of the Iowa votes and Romney gets 25%, then to stay in the race, Fred would need somewhat over 15%, IMO. That leaves 15% to be divided by “all others.” I’m suggesting Fred must poll half of the votes remaining after the top 2. From my POV McCain is a "has been" candidate. A foot note in the history books. "AZ Senator makes Ill Conceived Run on White House; backs discredited President's policies."

On the money issue. Even a poor finish in Iowa and NH, not to mention NV, puts us forward to Super Tuesday, February 5. I predict for both Dems and GOP, that will be the decisive moment for the “second tier” candidates. Whoever comes out of February 5 as the winner and a good showing by the runner-up will be the TWO candidates heading into the Conventions, late August for the Dems, early September for the GOP. All others become footnotes in hist0ry. The also rans.

[edit on 8/1/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I'm guessing that Newt got to Thompson. He may have been convinced to wait until after the Republican caucas meets in late September to announce. This is the very strategy that Gingrich himself laid out for his own run last year. the insurgent campaign. the chief advantage of which is that he contender can run hard and fast on just a few million dollars right before the '08 primaries.

I think the old guard that runs the GOP has already settled on Giuliani to be their sacrificial lamb. They haven't contested his liberal stands on anything becuse they don't expect him to win. At best, Thompson gets to be his running mate. At worst, Fred doesn't run at all.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   

posted by Justin Oldham
I'm guessing that Newt got to Thompson. He may have been convinced to wait until after the Republican caucus meets in late September to announce. This is the very strategy that Gingrich himself laid out for his own run last year. the insurgent campaign. the chief advantage of which is that he contender can run hard and fast on just a few million dollars right before the '08 primaries.

I think the old guard that runs the GOP has already settled on Giuliani to be their sacrificial lamb. They haven't contested his liberal stands on anything because they don't expect him to win. At best, Thompson gets to be his running mate. At worst, Fred doesn't run at all.


Good idea J/O, on Fred as VP. My idea of Romney as #2 doesn’t fly well. I visited by podiatrist today who was reluctant to say anything specific agreed that Romney would not be popular because of what people think the Mormon religion says or stands for. He unconsciously referred to Mormonism as “heretical.” Revealing.

So how does a Giuliani Thompson ticket sound? A better geographical balance - NY and TN - than would be NY and MA. Too, too much NE in the latter. Even for GOP-types. Contrast the Hillary Barack ticket. NY and IL. The number 1 and number 2 cities of America. And with a Mayor Daley in command, you know Hillary can count on “carrying” Illinois.

The Giuliani Thompson ticket does several things for the GOP top dogs. They can pacify the left of their party with Julie. “Quit griping, we gave you your chance!” They position Thompson for a second run in 2012 but then, for the Big Banana. A stalking horse for 2016. That move would restore the confidence in the GOP base - conservative evangelicals - and give them the impetus to get ready for the real race, Barack for Prez in 2016! The Anti-Christ! The Battle of Armageddon. If you Love Jesus, Vote Republican!

That development should displease enough secular GOPs to cause them to vacate the premises, leave the ‘GOP’ name to the ultra religious as in Israel, and to begin a real 3rd party that might outpoll the old GOP in 2016. Hmm? Hello Michael Bloomberg!

[edit on 8/1/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 10:30 PM
link   
"Welcome to Fred mania amusement park car registration number 3hj788 has left there lights on . "

Fred seems to be right up side show alley .
I mean come on how swallow are people or the system that allows Fred and Newt to stir up Republican supporters and the media. Fred must be a part of the establishment because Fred mania seems to draw more attention then Ron Paul does. Fred reminds me of Obama in the sense that he sings the right tune to his audience but there is very little substance behind the stage curtain.

Note this is still my initial thoughts I don't want to pass final judgement on Fred but I sure aren't going to take his candidacy seriously until enters the race officially.

[edit on 1-8-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   

posted by xpert11
Fred seems to be right up side show alley. I mean come on how swallow are people or the system that allows Fred and Newt to stir up Republican supporters and the media. Fred must be a part of the establishment because Fred mania seems to draw more attention then Ron Paul does. Fred reminds me of Obama in the sense that he sings the right tune to his audience but there is very little substance behind the stage curtain.

Note this is still my initial thoughts I don't want to pass final judgement on Fred but I sure aren't going to take his candidacy seriously until enters the race officially.


As I recall, when Fred began to hint he was about to jump into the fracas, he launched like a small rocket in the polls, running #3 or #2 and not even an official candidate. That may show as much dissatisfaction on the part of the persons being polled as it does on the quality of campaign expected from Fred. Aside: there are 2 very crucial and very difficult issues in good polling; selecting a truly random sample and writing questions that do not suggest an answer.

Ron Paul is a non-starter. He is consistently in the 1% approval spot shared with 3 or 4 other “minor” candidates. The best any minor candidate has done recently was Ross Perot in 1992. He got 18% and 19 million votes. He boo-boo’ed his own candidacy when he withdrew then came back in. It is not easy to say from this distance how much that effected his race. It ended 43% to Clinton, 38% to Bush41 and 18% to Perot. All others, 1%. See Foot Note.

Among 3rd parties in the 20th century only Teddy Roosevelt - 1912 - and J Strom Thurmond - 1948 - and George Wallace - 1968 - ever received electoral votes. Perot polled the most votes ever received by a thrid party but the TWO major parties have gerrymandered the country so well that ALL his votes were neutralized. Perot got NO electoral votes. And we say nothing, self-deluding as if we had the creme-de-la-creme of democracies over here. Throughly propagandized by the main stream media. And betrayed by "No Child Left Behind" union busting pseudo education laws. GOD Bless America! Land of the Free and Home of the Brave! WOW!

I suspect Fred has some serious skeletons in his closet that he cannot hide. He obviously has an ego problem evidenced by him discarding his first wife to take on a “trophy” wife some 30 years his junior. His daughter is older than his wife. A Super Stud for President!? Look out Monica if you're invited to the White House, don't crawl under a desk and for GOD's sake, stay off your knees!


Foot Note. Most observers say Perot's 1992 votes came equally from Dems and GOP so that it had no effect on the outcome. That is not true in 2000, when the 3 million Green votes including the 85,000 Green votes in Florida, definitely came predominantly from Dems, thus the Greens did "throw" the 2000 election to the GOP. And the rest is history.

[edit on 8/2/2007 by donwhite]




top topics



 
15
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join