"Extremism in the Defense of Liberty is No Vice. Moderation in the Pursuit of Justice is No Virtue!" --Barry Goldwater.
.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

Republican Presidential Choice 2008

The Republican Presidential ticket for 2008 should be Sen. Rick Santorum (PA) and Rep. Katherine Harris (FL) for Vice President. Politically, geographically and socially this ticket would be a win for all in support of the GOP and for conservative America as a whole.


REPUBLICAN Presidential Nominee Mistake in 2008 And Their Faults


Gov. Gorge Pataki is a northeast liberal Republican

Rudy Giuliani is a northeast liberal Republican that left his wife and kids to live with his 20 years younger girlfriend at his rich gay friend's multi-million dollar apartment. Did I mention he was married to his cousin!

Sen. John McCain is covert liberal and is not to be trusted, this man make John Kerry look wholesome. He is dislike by American Conservative and he knows it.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a liberal moron

Sen Bill Frist is a weak politician and a back stabber with unknown convictions if any

Gov. Jeb Bush is a Bush

Gov. Mitt Romney is from Massachusetts

Sen. George Allen is an unknown name to the American people

Vice Pres. Dick Cheney weak heart plus weak conviction and can you say Halliburton

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would be a pro-abortion black woman running for President of the Untied States of America as a Republican candidate and she has never ran for office before need I say more.

21 comments:

Mark said...

You have it all wrong. We need someone on the far left, not someone on the far right, as our next president!

Renato said...

Yeah, Mark is right, Communism is thE answer for you yanks.

Ben said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ben said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ben said...

As a Democrat, let me remind you that Katherine Harris has yet to even win a Senate bid, and Rick Santorum is trailing in the polls.

Karlo said...

Do not spam my blog. Your comment had zilch to do with my post.

Anonymous said...

u

Anonymous said...

r

Anonymous said...

s

Anonymous said...

p

Anonymous said...

a

Anonymous said...

m

Anonymous said...

r

Anonymous said...

o

Anonymous said...

t

Jim said...

Regarding Santorum, I repeat from earlier:

Let me ask you if you agree with this.

Any legislature should be able to make any law. If it is a "bad" law, that's OK because the legislature will correct its mistake next year or the next. Courts should not have the ability to rule against that law.

Do you agree? If the legislature would correct it next year, why would they pass it in the first place? What if they don't change it?

What if the legislature of, say, Missouri passed a law that says all children must go to public school and parents are not allowed to send their kids to private school or to home school them. Bad law? I think so. Should the citizens of Missouri depend on the legislature changing their mind next year, or wait for the next election to vote the SOBs out? What do they do in the mean time? I think parents should be able to go to court and get the law nullified. But the Constitution says absolutely nothing about parents sending their kids to private school or home school. So obviously, there is no Constitutional "right" to home school kids or send them to private school, right?

But here is Rick Santorum on CNN:

SANTORUM: I didn't. I said it was a bad law. And... They had the right to make it. Look, legislatures have the right to make mistakes and do really stupid things...but we don't have to create constitutional rights because we have a stupid legislature. And that's the problem here, is the court feels like they have a responsibility to right every wrong. When they do that, unlike a Congress, that if we make a really stupid mistake and we do something wrong, we go back next year or next month and change it, and we've done that. Courts don't do that. They only get cases that come before them and they have to make broad, sweeping decisions that have huge impact down the road.

That's what happened in Griswold. It was a bad law. The court felt, we can't let this bad law stand in place. It's wrong. It was. But they made a -- they created out of whole cloth a right that now has gone far, far from Griswold versus Connecticut.

Disco Volante said...

Hey, look at my blog, you right wing coonass. There's a post there just for ya.

;)

Anonymous said...

I love idiotic commentary like this. You right wingers keep it up. Keep branding anyone who is remotely moderate as socialist freaks and supporting the village idiot that is our president and you might as well offer to move the Dems into the White House in 08. Oh, and please do us one more big favor; PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE keep supporting Mr. Rove and keep him standing front in center of your party!

GOP Christian said...

Santorum / DeLay 2008! :-D

...unless liberals hate someone else more. :-)

scrappy said...

you know, I might have agreed with you on some of the people you listed until I got to Arnald Schwarzenegger. When you are dumb enough to list someone who, even if he wanted to run, couldn't then you show all the lefties out there that you don't do your homework.

Myron said...

Schwarzenegger is lobbying to amend the Constitution so that naturalized citizens would be eligible to run for president. Haven't you seen his website? www.amendus.org


Amend for Arnold & Jen

Other related links below

The Terminator for President?
By Staff and Wire Reports
Jul 16, 2003, 03:05


Congress to consider easing presidential eligibility
Naturalized citizens would be able to hold highest office



Arnold Schwarzenegger still wants to become president of the United States


If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It


Drive for naturalized president is all uphill
Idea is growing, but support for constitutional amendment lags