Changing my earlier prediction on Dem Candidate....

The Democrats are really long shots. They need the war in Iraq to go badly or the economy to go into deep recession in order to win. Otherwise, people will be reluctant to change horses in the middle of a stream.

So I think that Hillary is out as she cannot win in 2004. The Democrats are looking for a sacrificial candidate who can at least carry his own state.

People are well aware that this may be World War III or a major war. The economy is always abnormal in war. One would be a fool to engage in massive personal spending with so much military uncertainty. So Bush is not so bad off as the polls make it seem. Afterall, why should the GOP campaign a year in advance?

 

Hillary will be the Dem Candidate.

 

If she is, it will be yet another clear cut example of a bald-faced lie from one of the Clintons.

 

LOL Pastor Larry said:

But what was her definition of RUN? Did she mean a run in her stockings or a run in the park? Believe me... they've already got the spin doctor's coming up with a way around this one!

Diane

 

Huh! Ha! I guess it all depends on what your defintion of "WAS" was!!!!!!!!

 

Well I feel 100% sure she would never ask Willie to be her running 'mate'! Run from him maybe...

I hope she runs. I hope Sharpton runs and I hope some Nadar type runs.

 

amazing that Bush is looking like he can lose

 

Not really. The same happened to his father. The time frame is almost identical, too.

 

How would Hillary's policies differ from Bush's?

 

If she is, it will be yet another clear cut example of a bald-faced lie from one of the Clintons. </font>[/QUOTE]Typical rightwing tactic to accuse someone of lying for something they haven't done but you speculate that they might do You really lose all credibility when you do that - why not stick to things which have actually been said & done? Surely if they are as bad as you seem to see them, there is sufficient real actions and words to accuse them of.

 

She would be PRO abortion. She would be anti-military. She would embrace the radical lesbian agenda-apparently she's embraced lesbians for years.

 

1) Which would have about as much effect as President Bush's ANTI abortion stance has had on the issue. By the way, Mr. Bush did go along with using fetal tissue in research, at least in a limited way, by the way.

2) Yep. That would be THE major problem with her as president.

3) As long as she limits her support to only the civil union idea and doesn't push the marriage idea, that stance would do no more than what would probably take place in a second George W. Bush administration.

 

She would be PRO abortion. She would be anti-military. She would embrace the radical lesbian agenda-apparently she's embraced lesbians for years. </font>[/QUOTE]Jude,

On another thread and related topic I responded to your post with the following:

But, you disappeared. The evidence, though, does not disappear.

You are correct that Hillary would problbly be bad for the military, but I'm not too thrilled with the way Bush is (mis)using it anyway.

Bush's "pro-life" stand is a fraud. 3500 dead babied every day he holds office and he is preacicaly silent. The PBA ban is mostly political cover for phony pro-lifers, a bill with little political fallout but still 3500+ dead babies per day.

And, Hillary would likely be more conservative than Bush when it comes to government expansion and spending. I know that's hard to believe, but then I never would have believed that a Republican president would out-liberal the Democrats to as Bush has done. (well, actually I would have believed it...I tried to warn folks about Bush the first time but most won't listen)

 

Why are the Third Parties refusing to attack the Congressional Democrats who are the real source of the massive spending?

The House of Representatives starts all spending bills. The White House has little to do with spending. Bush has a narrow margin of victory from 2000 so his hands are tied, although I wish that he had done more but I give him a pass because of the all-consuming job of worldwide leader in the war against terror.

The Third Parties damage their casue by not attacking the tax-and-spend Democrats. Do you think that you can join the Democrats in personal attacks on Bush and somehow reap a reward from the Democrats if they themselves are successful? The Democrats will not even return your calls if they gain power--no matter how much you help. Wait and see.

 

Church Mouse Guy,

I am not a "third party guy". I am a Republican.

I expect the Democrats to promote massive spending. That's what they believe, that's what they campaign for, and that's why their constituents vote for them.

So, in order to oppose them, we used to have the Republican party. I am very unhappy that my party's agenda has been hijacked by the Bush family and their liberal eletist cronies. The policies that they actually implement are now more liberal than the Democrats.

So, maybe it's futile to attempt to take back the party. But, I am attempting to do my little part.

If someone steals your car, the proper response isn't to give them gas money. Likewise, I will not support "Republicans" who are nothing but political opportunists who have stolen my party, using the formulas that have empowered the Democrats for years.

Democrats at least have honor in implementing what they claim to believe in. The establishment Republicans of today are nothing but hypocrites.

 

Democrat at least have honor?

An oxymoron if I ever saw one.

 

PA, I think as you do about the spending. The GOP always has a sprinkling of liberals who vote with the Democrats. I wish that the liberals would all become Democrats.

Wouldn't you agree that Bush is a moderate and not a conservative? People are yelling that he is a Methodist and a Christian rightist--well, Hillary is a Methodist, ha! ha!

Here in Indiana, several Christians have tried to win the GOP nomination for Governor. They do well with the common people but never get a majority in the primary. Next year we have a Christian with a strong organization and the endorsement of former Governor Otis Bowen, one of the most popular GOP governors. His name is Eric Miller. He seemed to be doing well until Mitch Daniels, former Bush director of the office of budget management and former CEO of Lilly Pharmaseuticals, resigned and returned to Indy to run for governor. His connections with the establishment are so deep that he probably will swamp Miller. Bush calls Daniels "My man Mitch."

But I would like to see the GOP clean house and stop the increases in spending in Washington DC, the Indiana State House in downtown Indianapolis, and Indianapolis City Hall.

 

Church Mouse Guy,

I have bad news for you. The Republicans HAVE "cleaned house" in Washington. They now control the House, Senate, and White House. And now that they are in control we can see what they have done. They have been in many instances (especially but not exclusively fiscal issues) MORE LIBERAL than the Democrats. They are ruining us financially by doing the same things for which we criticize the Democrats, ONLY WORSE. Are we hypoctites?

Here's something that I hope you will prayerfully consider:

Christian conservatives have tremendous political clout...but only if we use it. Obviously if you look at the political landscape, we have not used it. How can we use it? HERE'S THE KEY...the good news:

The Republican Party cannot win elections without the conservative vote. Period. But, they keep giving us liberal candidates. Conservatives figure "well, I don't want a Democrat" so they vote for the liberal Republican. Therefore, NOTHING CHANGES. The ONLY way it will change is for conservatives to be willing to say "WE WILL NO LONGER SUPPORT OR VOTE FOR CANDIDATES WHO ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE". If we are not willing to take a stand and let liberal Republicans LOSE, our power is worthless.

And, really, what is there to lose...Bill Clinton was in many ways more conservative than Bush. Al Gore probably would have been, too. We'd have lost nothing, and gained the attention of the Republican establishment who would be FORCED TO GIVE US CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES, or at least something better than what we have.

 

Jude!! Jude!! Where are ya, Jude???

I'm going to keep posting W's record on homosexual activism until you answer!!

1. Candidate George W. Bush appointed four openly homosexual, gay-rights advocates to his presidential campaign steering committee. According to the homosexual group, Log Cabin Republicans, "scores" of Bush state steering committee members and campaign volunteers were homosexuals.

2. Perhaps this explains why hundreds of homosexuals gathered in Washington, D.C., last weekend to "celebrate the achievements and leadership of George W. Bush." It also helps to explain why Rich Tafel, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, said, "We want the country to know that we are behind our president and administration."

3. On Dec. 21, 2001, President Bush signed a historic bill, which "for the first time allows the District of Columbia government to fund a program that will give domestic partners of city employees access to health benefits." Remember, Bush insisted that openly homosexual Congressman Jim Kolbe of Arizona be given a prominent speaking role at the Republican National Convention. It was Kolbe who introduced the amendment lifting the ban on gay partner benefits in D.C.

4. Bush named Scot Evertz, a prominent homosexual activist, to head the White House AIDS office even though he had absolutely no experience dealing with public health issues.

5. Bush appointed another homosexual activist, Donald Cappoccia, to the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts.

6. Bush appointed openly homosexual, Michael Guest, as Ambassador to Romania. Since then, Bush has decided to leave in place a Clinton policy that calls for supporting the "unmarried partners" of U.S. Foreign Service workers. This allows Guest's live-in lover to live in the U.S. Embassy in Bucharest and allows him to join Guest at official embassy functions.

7. Bush presided over the appointment of homosexual activist, Stephen Herbits, to oversee the choice of civilian personnel at the Pentagon.

8. Bush has not reversed a single pro-homosexual policy instituted by former president Bill Clinton. Not even one!

9. The Bush administration posted a job for what is called a "gay and lesbian program specialist" at the Department of Agriculture.

10. Bush appointed the ardently pro-homosexual Governor of Massachussetts, Paul Cellucci, as U.S. Ambassador to Canada.

11. Bush appointed Lewis Eisenberg to become the new GOP chief fundraiser. Eisenberg has a long history of supporting pro-homosexual and pro-abortion candidates.

12. Just yesterday, The Washington Times reported, "The Bush administration has joined European delegates to an upcoming U.N. summit on children in moving to recognize families 'in various forms,' including unmarried cohabiting couples and homosexual partners."


From: http://covenantnews.com/baldwin020423.htm