Mr. Beamish, from The Crank Files, gets it so right on his blog that I had to share it here: (his blog address is blogrolled, too, check it out, it has good music, too);
Secretary of State........................Mr. John Bolton
Attorney General........................Mr. Rudy Giuliani
Secretary of Education...............Mr. Alan Keyes
Secretary of Defense...................Mr. Duncan Hunter
Supreme Court Justice...............Mr. Fred Thompson
Even I would smile at the polls on November 8 as I cast my vote for (gasp!) John McCain if he promised the guys above would be matched with the jobs above. Read Clarence Thomas's autobiography to see just how awful ANY even remotely conservative applicant to the Supreme Court might be treated these days. But, at least we have a conservative side of the media these days to make sure the terrible Biden/Metzenbaum treatment of Justice Thomas doesn't happen QUITE so easily and undercover as it did then. Imagine the hearings of Bolton for Secretary of State? You think this country could survive them?!
I would also like to make a suggestion of Elmer's Brother as.....Secretary of the Navy
Some of you know the reasons. Those of you who don't, he's just the guy. Start campaigning!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
58 comments:
I'm on-board. Somebody blow the whistle!
My first official duty as Secretary of the Navy is to bring back the battleships.
A flying volkswagen landing in your back yard will set most people straight.
Shhh...I'm speaking softly.
But if it's NAVY, that backyard has to have a pool for a landing strip, right!?
Farmer John...for Secretary of Letters
(that is, if anybody can READ anymore)!
FJ will be a personal advisor to President Beamish and perhaps on the NSC
My whole point is (and I'm a reluctant "calmed down for McCain" conservative supporter now) is that our rise and threatened backlash guarantees that McCain will run both with a social conservative, and stick to his guns on economic conservatism.
The rest is hate for Hillary.
"We win, they lose." - Ronald Reagan
Except Mr. Beamish has withdrawn his name from the nomination. It's a bad day for America.
Hey, Mr. B. Thanks for letting me print your list. I appreciate it.
"We win, they lose"
God bless Ronald Reagan! Please, God, LET THEM LOSE! We have so much resting on Nov 8.
including my sanity
this is a great list!
i see you've been out and about having you some z-girl fun!
HA!
beamish is the bomb. along with farmer and elbro.
LOL
Great list except for Thompson...he got it wrong, VERY wrong, interpretting what the role of the Senate was in an impeachment of a President (he thought it was his role as a Senator to 'decide' if perjury was an impeachable offense...um, it's pretty clear that Constitutionally, that's the role ONLY of the House and they had ALREADY decided it WAS impeachable.)
So, I don't think I would want Thompson in that role...
Otherwise, great list!
Pati
nanc.....the biggest kick from having started this blog is seeing how welcoming and kind other bloggers are (your input was invaluable, by the way) and seeing how MANY FANTASTIC blogs there are out there! I am loving it. just great!
Pati...them's fightin' words. I hope Mr. Beamish comes back and gives you some 'what for'!! I want a GOOD ARGUMENT AROUND HERE!!!
if you long for leftists - go here - you won't be disappointed, ask farmer...it's like fpm on steroids! i have a post up here and they moved it to the FRONT PAGE!
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha!
p.s. - sorry again to have been so harsh, i just wanted you to be in the full swing of things and i'm glad you're having fun with this - you'll meet many interesting people along the way and strange ones like elbro too!
*8]
Hi everyone.
OK, here's a question for you all. What post would McCain tap Lieberman for? He's campaigned with McCain and stuck his neck out for him the way I see it.
The only "safe" place I see him is Secy of Defense. That's the only issue he's conservative on, and a huge supporter of the war. The rest, he's liberal. But, is he qualified?
I do like Duncan Hunter. For him, how about Homeland Security. That involves border issues.
Pris
Z,
You really think Thompson read the Constitution correctly? He was soooo off base. Sorry, it's pretty cut and dried, and if he didn't get that right, how can we count on him to get anything else right. LOL
Pris,
LOL I think Lieberman would be the PERFECT Sec of Def...especially to send a LOUD and CLEAR message to our European allies and the ME enemies, we AIN'T playin'...Israel remains an ALLY and we WILL stand by her TILL THE END. LOL I would sooo back that posting.
Pati
Lieberman for Sec of Defense. I could go for that, Pris and Pati. What a lovely message having a Jew in that position would send Iran and Lebanon, huh? I love that.
Pati, Thompson probably made a mistake. I still like him.
I trust him. OR I wouldn't mind Ted Olsen on the Court UNTIL I heard he endorsed McCain right after Giuliani gave up.
As for Duncan Hunter? Homeland Security would suit me to A T...as in Anti Terror.
AOW for Secretary of Education
FJ for heading NASA
Beaker for head of DHS
I could handle Leiberman for Defense...
tmw
tmw - chief cook
nanc - librarian
*8]
Uh...Z, guess who else endorsed McCain...LOL Yep! Your guy. Thompson LOL LOL LOL
And, I have a question: why is McCain such a schmutz for McCain/Feingold but Bush and yep..your man Thompson get a pass on it? They BOTH supported IT! Sheesh...consistency PEOPLE...is it alot to ask? LOL
I hate to break it to you Morgan, but it wasn't the RNC that killed Thompson's campaign..nope, he managed that ALL by his LONESOME. I thought I would be glad to see him enter the race..and then I waited, and I waited, and I waited...for ANYTHING remotely resembling a race. Not impressive, not at all. Sorry. So, wrong on interpretting the Constitution on a very critical point, a point that had to do with his JOB at the time, AND he co-signed/sponsored/or voted for McCain/Feingold...and now has endorsed McCain. Still love him Z? LOL
I will grant you that McCain had help, but it wasn't the RNC, not until he came back from the dead and the voters were going for him and the Dem pundits and the polls confirmed he had the best chance in the general...then there might have been some behind the scenes stuff...but his come back was all his own and MUCH to the chagrin of the RNC and the conservative pundits. I do think it is the RNC that has Sean all defensive about what he dang well knows he did...which was to TOTALLY and DISINGENUOUSLY depict McCain as more liberal than Ted Kennedy...the least he could do is have the cojones to cop to it. If you're going to do it, stand up and say "Yeah, I did it. So what?"
What does he do? He keeps saying he's been in radio twenty years and implies then how could anyone think I was being anything more than principled. Geee, I don't know Sean,...do you suppose McCain, also a Republican for twenty years and thousands not fifteen votes to prove it...but you tried to define the man's entire ideological makeup by those few votes/Bills....don't feel so great the other way round though.
I got no sympathy for any of them. My hope was that Gingrich would enter, when he begged off for his American Solutions I wanted to have a good cry.
So early on I had to come to peace with whoever won the ticket would be better than either Dem. But, noway did the RNC want it to be McCain. Romney was their hopeful; he just wasn't winning the votes.
Z
I guess these are more people you cannot respect for they now endorse McCain:
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, American Values President Gary Bauer and Republican Steering Committee head Rep. Jeb Hensarling all offered their backing to the Arizona senator.
and Thompson, Giuliani, pres. Bush basically sang his praises the other day...said he's a conservative...
I'm still waiting for the explanation as to why Thompson gets a pass for cosponsoring McCain/Feingold and Bush for signing it...it just seems so obvious that the angst about MCCain is not so much substance after all....
Pati
strange ones like elbro too!
nanc...wait till I get my hands on you!!
Pati, I'm proud those people didn't endorse McCain when they really had a choice. I still like Thompson, yes..and I'm highly admire Jeb Bush for having waited.
And I TOTALLY disagree with you about the RNC. The RNC killed Thompson, the RNC killed Romney because he's not a party boy, Pati. The RNC wants McCain. We have friends who were on Giuliani's Advisory group..Joel told me the candidates "HATE ROMNEY" You think that doesn't include the RNC folks? Sure, he's handsome, rich, has values he lives by....and didn't need the party to help him.
I KNOW, I'm starting to sound like a liberal here going mostly on what I FEEL happened, but I SAW plenty, too. I have a conspiracy theory I'm not going to share here because I don't believe in them much...suffice it to say!!
Crist jumped into the McCain ring before all the delegates were going that way. Jeb did not, bless him. I'm thinking it cost Jeb some party points for coming into the mcCain ring late. I'm not quite the big Bush fan some people are, I'm not at all surprised he's playing the party line,either, pati.
Here's the bigger point: What the heck can these pundist do now? throw their weight behind the loser, Huckabee?(God forbid) NO, they HAVE nowhere else to go. SO, now it's the CABINET TANGO. ."I'm for him so I"LL GET A GOOD POSITION!"...that's all starting now! I EXPECT this from Giuliani, J Bush, etc.
I did not expect it from Thompson. He's the only one I'm surprised about becuase he was anything but a party boy, too.
Look, I'm disappointed in them, especially him, but that's politics, Pati. I'm not going to apologize for how I felt or feel now.
I can't stand McCain, but he's my boy now! I have nowhere else to go. SO, I'm doing what the talk radio people are doing (and I admire the ones who fought him for so long) in looking for the good in him.
Keep convincing me. I need you to do that!
Z
the first candidate I saw, gave a wonderful speech in the Bush 1 Library in Texas with Bush 1 standing by like a proud father...I don't know about you, but I think Bush 1 is pretty much representative and part and parcel with the RNC of which you speak...you know who that speaker was? Romney. That's just a fact.
Conspiracy ...whatever. Look, the RNC can have whatever ulterior motives it likes, but the fact of the matter is that not any but other RNC members who can endorse or vote are going to be affected by them...not nearly as much as the media. Now..consider that the only way the RNC can get influence out is through their 'friendly' media folk...that's not CNN or the TIMES or MSNBC...nope. That's Rush, Sean, Ingraham, Ann...and they were NOT FOR MCCain...so, the whole conspiracy thing works but ONLY if you're saying it was PRO ROMNEY OR virtually anybody BUT MCCain. LOL
Voters are not influenced one bit by the RNC, and they are who matter. Thompson did not pull in the votes. Thompson did not bother to show up to campaign. Thompson said on more than one occassion that I heard when he had air time to really sell himself that he didn't really care about being president. It was like the anti-sell...and that's the effect that it had...and now you want to blame anybody BUT him? I thought we were the party of personal responsibility. You don't recall Bill OReilly going on and on about how after REPEATED invites Thompson's people would NOT organize getting him on with BILL...it was VERY late in the game when THOMPSON BOTHERED. You can't blame that on anybody BUT him. It's blindness to do so. Talk about denial, and codependency. Wow. You guys have it bad. LOL
Why is it my job to have to sell everyone on McCain? I have stated repeatedly he was no more my favorite than any of the others. But at least I can look for myself to his record. And perhaps because I watch the Senate and the House and Wshgton Journal etc, I felt I already knew him fairly well. Still, it is neither difficult nor unfair to expect that folks would at least check the record for themselves.
Beyond all of that. The man has an 83% rating with CAW...compared to Hillary's 9%...I think that makes him at least a 'comparative' conservative. ( But then I'm a Republican, not so much a conservative, which is probably why I don't suffer so much angst with his record. I'm not looking for changes to the Constitution to protect or promote my religious convictions...)
Like I said, you don't have to like him to know he's the best choice out there. Like Gingrich said, it's better to anticipate fighting him 20% of the time versus Hillary or Obama 90% of the time.
However, your own attitude will not serve to bring about a win in 08. And, z, I am ALL for HONEST reporting of ACTUAL substantive difference...fifteen votes/bills do not amount to 'substantive' out of a thousand votes...not even close. AND, selectively choosing snippets of Senate floor explanations for a man's vote, is not HONEST reporting it is DISINGENUOUS and speaks MORE to an idea of conspiracy than any RNC plot against McCain.
Now...if you wanted to say a DNC conspiracy, I might actually buy that one...in all those caucuses and primaries where they let Dems and Ind. vote in the Rep. ticket contests...you might persuade me of a concerted effort to bring him about ...same with the Times report...same with the liberal media in general and same with the Dem pundits continually saying that they feared McCain most...a conspiracy to trick us into nominating a person our own base won't turn out for, perhaps knowing he was the one they wanted all along....that I might buy. The RNC doesn't fly...because they DON"T like him, in case you hadn't noticed and neither do any of the pundits who might be influenced by the RNC...
ugh...it's exhausting. Why don't you take a turn at convincing me. It'll give you good practice.
Pati
Pati,
Thompson mangled the answer, but his intent was clear.
The Senate acts as "Jury" in an impeachment trial.
They do so very much decide the outcome of an impeachment trial.
Elbro,
Thompson was McCain's presidential campaign director in 2000.
Pati, I don't believe the RNC OR DNC aren't powerful enough to affect voters. It's not the GROUP that is, you don't really hear that much from it, do you. But, the people, the machinations behind the scenes, are in their BIG TIMG swinging.
I know for a fact none of the candidates likes Romney. I'd heard that rumored but I doubted that until I spoke to Rich Galen and Joel from the Giuliani campaigns. They couldn't stand him. And I believe the RNC DOES like McCain. What gives you the impression it doesn't?
Pati, what do you want me to sell you on? You don't have to sell ME McCain because we got him for free.
And yes, my attitude stinks. I, talk radio hosts, other bloggers, ALL Conservatives/Libertarians, etc., we all have to get behind the only guy we HAVE to possibly beat the Socialists. period. We just can't 'hold our nose'(as Mama McCain suggested) and vote...because we need to convince Independents (40% of voters!, that's HUGE!) that HE IS THE ONE and WHY. And the WHY can't be "he's all we've got".
Just give me and others more than a week or two to digest all of this! Give us a chance...you're making an impact on me, Mr. Beamish is definitely making an impact on my thinking, too.
Every bit helps. Pris and DARdottr have, too. I thank everyone. I need it. We ALL do.
McCAIN FOR PRESIDENT! YIPPPEEEEE!!
oh, hell.
give me time!
z
Mr. Beamish...I'd forgotten about Thompson being mcCain's manager. boy. Well, they certainly don't agree on some points, but it gives me some hope. ugh
http://www.creators.com/opinion/thomas-sowell/mccain-s-straight-lies.html
PATI....then I read something like THIS...
yes, we're stuck with him. I'm never going to be happy, but I will smile through what I know deep in my heart is not really a great thing.
z
They say action speaks louder than words.
I've researched McCain's voting record a little bit, and quickly seperated fact from noise and BS.
Here's my case for McCain:
1.) President Hillary Clinton
2.) President Barack Hussein Obama
3.) McCain is solidly pro-life, has voted against federal funding for abortion services without exception, and opposes federal funding of embryonic stem cell research - his record here is better than many Republicans
4.) McCain voted AGAINST closing Gitmo and transfering the terrorists there to detention facilities on US soil (i.e. the "McCain wants to close Gitmo" argument is bullshit)
5.) Taxes - McCain consistently voted for cutting taxes on ALL income levels below $150,000 a year, as well as cutting taxes on retirees, capital gains, inheritance, fuel / gasoline, and sales (he claims he didn't vote for Bush's tax cuts because they weren't directed enough for him at the middle class... I'm inclined to believe him. This is not a "class war" panderer as the anti-McCain pundits would have you believe)
6.) Solidly pro-Defense spending. McCain has been a Peace-Through-Superior-Firepower "hawk" since the Reagan years
7.) Solidly pro-Intelligence spending. All through his Senate career.
8.) Against "gay marriage" (but, regretably for "civil unions")
9.) Solidly pro-death penalty and for tougher penalties for violent crimes
10.) Solidly anti-drug legalization, solidly for border security to fight drug smuggling
11.) Solidly for school vouchers and tax cuts for saving for college
12.) Solidly AGAINST affirmative action standards in hiring and employment
13.) VERY solidly pro-gun owner, including support for concealed carry
And on the minus side:
1.) He supports amnesty for illegal aliens aready here
2.) He supports tougher environmental laws
3.) Wants to cut funding on space exploration
Given all of that, what's the problem?
The problem with McCain is not with me, it's with the people he works with in the Senate.
His record is that he's damned hard-headed when he makes up his mind.
He's either dead wrong, or balls-on-right.
Most of the time, he's been balls-on-right on the side of issues that conservatives feel passionately about.
Maybe he really is the "true conservative" after all.
Somebody tell me why I shouldn't vote for him again?
Hi, Mr. B: You asked:
Somebody tell me why I shouldn't vote for him again?
Your answers are good enough for me:
1.) He supports amnesty for illegal aliens aready here
2.) He supports tougher environmental laws
Z: We WILL vote for him. There is no doubt about it (even as 'dugg' is still touting Ron Paul's convention surprise at Elbro's site!), but these things are HUGE!! He could sign KYOTO! Which means to me that he'll swallow anything & he's not really interested in facts OR our economy!
You mentioned the senate; The senate is Democrat and rumored to become MORE so in November. This is a problem, Mr. Beamish. NO?
Still, you calmed me down quite a bit with the plus list you posted above. And maybe he's lying (GASP! In an ELECTION YEAR?) and will say he was just kidding about the amnesty thing?
i can dream. How do you say "dream" in Espanol?
Ya, I don't know, either..and I don't really want to know. And I speak a couple of other languages, I'm not against that!
Elbro,
I'm not sure what you are saying, nor am I certain that you understood what I said. Quite frankly, I don't want a person having anything to do with interpretting the Constitution who 'gets it wrong' as Thompson did. AND, he's got a law degree.
In HIS own words, he felt that they had proved obstruction and perjury, but that he didn't think perjury 'qualified' for impeachment...not that Clinton didn't perjure himself, and so decided 'not guilty'...on that charge. But the Constitution is very CLEAR Elbro, very clear...
Article 1 Section 2 "The House of Representatives shalld Chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the 'sole' Power of Impeachment."
Article 1 Section 3 "The Senate shall have the 'sole' Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for the Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President fo the United States is 'tried', the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be 'convicted' without concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. 'Judgement' in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but theParty 'convicted' shall nevertehless be liable and subject to Indictment,Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
Now, where in that text does it say to ANY Senator that it is THEIR job to determine whether or not a particular act qualifies FOR impeachment? Because, it's pretty clear that the HOUSE has the SOLE authority to decide whether or not a crime is an impeachable offense or not...So, the Senate 'tries' the case brought BY THE HOUSE in the IMPEACHMENT which has ALREADY been decided by the PROPER and Constitutional authority...The Senator did not say he found Clinton NOT TO have been PROVED a perjuror by the HOUSE...he said in his OPINION and 'reading of the Constitution' that he didn't think perjury was an IMPEACHABLE offense...NOT HIS CALL. PERIOD. His SOLE job was to find GUILT proved or not....
Now, I gotta ask myself...is the man that stupid? I don't think so..then the only OTHER explanation, IMO, is that he found it POLITICALLY expediant to substitute HIS OPINION OVER that of the ENTIRE House of Representatives...but it's McCain who is scary? Wow. Wow.
I cannot believe the pass conservatives give him on this. And to suggest that a position in ANY of the Judicial positions/appointments I find to be flawed, grossly flawed.
I stand by my comments about the man. I feel that mine are supported by facts. Facts that I find much more frightening than McCain/Feingold which he co-sponsored, or anything else that McCain has done, either legislatively or by vote. AT least he didn't substitute his own opinion and circumvent the PROPER processes to bring them about.
I also find it hysterical the reaction to 'honest' criticism of Thompson's inadequacies, yet I'm not supposed to react to the consistent misrepresentation of McCain's twenty years proved record by folks who selective repeat the same few out of context quotes and votes...remarkable.
Pati
Z
I am not saying whether or not the RNC likes or dislikes so much as I am saying the impact of that ON THE ELECTORATE is infintesimal...minmiscule..in other words, whether you're right or I am, and I do think Bush senior is a part of the club, and he was behind Romney ALL the way from the beginning, doesn't matter in terms of what the voters decide.
And, I am confused. First the conservatives are upset because McCain is being voted in by those nasty Independents and cross over Dems rather than a candidate they, the conservatives like, but now my concern should not be the conservatives who 'continue' to espouse their dislike of the man and threaten to keep people unenthused and unwilling to vote for him, but it should be for the independents who already like McCain? Very confused by that...
And, perhaps the best way to convince them is NOT as Rush would have you believe (make them believe conservatives HATE MCCain, then they'll vote for him...), nope. They already vote for McCain. Matter of fact, Rove the other night spoke about the phenomenon of the percent of independents who recently voted for Hillary or Obama that will vote FOR McCain in the general. 15% of Hillary's independents and 18% of Obama's will vote for McCain in a head to head match up with McCain. So, the biggest burden for the Republicans is NOT the independents as Rush would have you believe. It's his continued harping which WILL keep conservatives home...and no matter the independents THAT will bring defeat. Whether he wants to try to deflect that obviety now, but asserting otherwise or not. The 'evidence' in the polling doesn't support him.
You can't spend the first part of the primary complaining that independents have thrust the guy on you, and then try to claim that it is the independent vote that will cost the election in a general...especially when you've been harping on him consistently and telling the based to sit out the vote. Not even his fans should be buying into that. LOL
Pati
Pati! I think the INDEPENDENTS can win the election McCain and I'm GOOD with that.
And I am THE LAST PERSON who has EVER told anybody not to vote! Where did I say that? NEVER!
It's the worst idea anybody can have. Remember my saying it's "cutting off your nose to spite your face"? (you can quote me..ha! ya, it's not new! But it SURE works here, in my opinion!)
Sorry you got another impression on either of these points...because this is how I feel.
I honestly didn't see any coverage of the first Bush supporting Romney, but I'm sure you're right. Interesting. And yes, I do believe Bush is part of the 'good ol' boys club' except that he panders to that damned Clinton so hard I could spit!
Z,
I wasn't saying 'you' specifically in that piece when talking about the independent versus conservative voters etc...I was saying a 'collective' you with regards mostly to the radio pundits and conservative base in general.
That's what makes this medium difficult..those things can be clarified more easily in real time. LOL
I know that you will vote for McCain, but in one of your posts you almost sounded as if even if the conservatives went for McCain, that we risk losing the independents. Sorry, if I misinterpretted your saying that.
I found it interesting that the polls Rove has done indicate that Obama will more of a percentage to McCain of independents in a general, than Hillary will or than McCain will lose to either of them. I would have thought Hillary would lose more than Obama. (Maybe she simply doesn't have that many independent voters for her to begin with...?) Anyway, I'm not as worried about an Obama win as I was before.
Scott says that many who are voting for him now are independents who don't want Hillary to have a chance at all, who will vote Republican in the general. He also says that in the general Obama will not be able to continue simply romancing people with words of 'hope.'..He'll have to prove that he has ANY credentials to bring any of that about...AND, he will have to prove he has the 'worldly' experience necessary to be CiC,during a time of war. Scott says it should be a no brainer vote for all but the suicidal and anti ALL war folk. My concern, of course, is that he is not aware of just what percentage of the voters he's talking about...lots of sheep out there Z...
Pati
Pati, I just heard Obama say "this is what happens when you use 9/11 to SCARE FOLKS!" SCARE FOLKS? Uh..ya. We were ALL pretty damned scared, huh, Barack? sorry if you didn't get the memo. A presidential candidate thinks it's a shame we're 'using 9/11 to scare folks'. THIS IS serious stuff. This is a muslim's heyday. THIS is getting Americans ready to drop their guard, to distance themselves from those "ridiculous scare mongers who blame islam"....you just wait for it.
I was thinking exactly the same thing that Scott said to you, Pati.........I believe Obama's getting votes from people who'd rather a Democrat rhinocerous won than Hillary. BUT...I also believe Americans are SO weakened by the media and their schooling that they're buying this "HOPE" "CHANGE" thing and don't even CARE about the details. THEY LOVE IT!
Bush is SO hated that ANYTHING is better, according to millions of Americans. Not a good thing.
You see Obama introduced..and see him running to the platform..tall, thin, handsome, minority...articulate, he doesn't shrug his shoulders when he giggles, mispronounce words, screech, smile as if he's thrilled people understood what he said...he just talks, deep voice, articulate. People who don't care what's inside the suit love the suit, Pati. Let's face it.
And let's hope to heck that independents are smarter than the Left is. I hope so. I sincerely hope so.
Oh, and yes, you misunderstood me about losing independents. My gut feeling tells me more independents will vote McCain than Obama. Independents who swing left a little(by definition?) can't go for Socialist Lite or they'd be registered Far Left, that's my feeling, anyway.
are we going to be able to ignore the "george soros" aspect in the "mccain't" aspect?
just sayin'...
Well, nanc...You sure did come in and throw Molotov Cocktail into the proceedings!!
SOROS AND McCAIN, huh?
Well, the article's right on amnesty and guns, that's for sure.
you voting for Obama? Or you sitting November out???
more on mccain't - no, i'll probably write beamish in.
p.s. - i'd never vote the way of my ancestors. they're yellow dogs.
My own investigations of the Soros angle of the anti-McCain movement have come up empty-handed.
An unpaid volunteer in McCain's campaign works for a Soros group McCain severed ties with.
I'm going to step on some toes here, so allow me to put my big boots on.
Hey Huckabee, I found Jesus without a federal program.
Unless someone can show me how to get stock options out of Rush Limbaugh selling another "President Clinton sucks" book, I'm voting for McCain.
Now for the other boot...
Hey NRA - you don't keep my guns from being confiscated. My trigger finger, box of ammo and cold, dead hands do.
But more importantly the "F-" rating from the aptly misnamed "Gun Owners of America" idiot organization / leftist foil to the NRA.
"McCain wants to limit the speech of 527 organizations" - from the GOA website.
Twilight Zone.
this video would make Hillary and Obama choke
(did you watch until the end when Code Pink interrupted and JOHN MCCAIN went off on them?)
THAT does it for me. Mr. Beamish for President.
done deal.
where did I say anything about Thompson?
Why did Beamish et al even mention me and Thompson in the same breath?
all I asked for is to be Secretary of the Navy.
Is that too much to ask?
Elbro,
I'm not sure what you are saying, nor am I certain that you understood what I said. Quite frankly, I don't want a person having anything to do with interpretting the Constitution who 'gets it wrong' as Thompson did. AND, he's got a law degree.
In HIS own words, he felt that they had proved obstruction and perjury, but that he didn't think perjury 'qualified' for impeachment...not that Clinton didn't perjure himself, and so decided 'not guilty'...on that charge. But the Constitution is very CLEAR Elbro, very clear...
Why are you talking to me?
To be CLEAR I just wanted to be Secretary of the Navy...
I don't see one comment that I made here that concerns or even mentions Thompson whatsoever
Hey, MR BEAMISH. I thought McCain really soft pedaled Code PInk..don't you?
Why do you think that video would shake Hill or Obama UP?
He sure reflects how I feel about this war, that's for sure..
z
Elbro: I think NW and Mr. Beamish got confused. You never brought up Thompson.
and, you can STILL be Secretary of the Navy! I'm on YOUR side!!!
well okay then
Sorry... got cornfused.
Too much friendly fire on the right going on.
Z -
Ever notice that Hillary and Obama speeches never get interrupted by Code Pinko?
Ever notice that Hillary and Obama speeches never mention that the right to bear arms is a check against tyranny?
Fight to get McCain in the White House...
... or choose to lose.
Choose to lose everything.
LOL
This is the post I had been responding to, perhaps you can see why I might have been confused...it appears to be 'signed' by Elbro...so, that's who I directed my comments to...my apologies for the confusion: )
Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...
Pati,
Thompson mangled the answer, but his intent was clear.
The Senate acts as "Jury" in an impeachment trial.
They do so very much decide the outcome of an impeachment trial.
Elbro,
Thompson was McCain's presidential campaign director in 2000.
February 12, 2008 11:21 AM
Pati
and I stand by my remarks...he was nowhere near just a little bit off the mark: he stated quite clearly that he thought it his job as a Senator to determine the 'impeachability' of a particular offense: that is quite unmistakably the purview, in entirety, of the House...the Senate ONLY tries the facts of the case presented by the House...Thompson SAID he thought perjury was PROVED, but that it should not be an impeachable offense...not HIS job...no way, no how...keep him away from our courts.
P
you're just directing them at the kakistokrat now - ok
Pati,
I recommend Thompson for the Supreme Court based on his prior work bringing down corrupt Democrats in Tennessee. He'd probably make a good Attorney General too, but I just like the idea of Rudy Guiliani directing the FBI to put an ass-whoopin' on Islamic charities connected to terrorism.
I'm with you, Mr. B. If Obama gets elected and is serious about including Republicans (ya, RIGHT), I hope this is a consideration...Giuliani would make a GREAT Dir of the FBI.
OR even Homeland Security.
Beyond my argument against Thompson on his misreading of the Senate role in impeachment, I'm not aware that he was ever a judge...is that not 'generally' the pool from which SC justices are selected? And if so, who would your pick be then?
Pati
Well, my pick for Supreme Court justice would have to answer the following questions correctly:
1.) Do Democrats hate everything you stand for?
You know, Pati, you make a good point; wouldn't you THINK you should have been a judge first? C. Thomas wasn't one for long, by the way... Not sure about the others. good point.
Mr. Beamish (how were the Valentine's ribs!?)...If that's the question and YES is the answer, he's a slam dunk! (I hope T Kennedy's not on the panel, you don't want to say DUNK to him)
DOn't know why I have water and Ted Kennedy in my mind this evening...I'm glad there's no waterway between Z's house and the restaurant. And I'm glad I have a husband who is a KEEPER, not a DUNKER!
Z,
No ribs. I had my traditional V-Day meal of a big ol' porterhouse steak, baked tater, and steamed veggies with a beer.
This year, we didn't go out to a restaurant. We stayed home and cooked it ourselves.
Post a Comment