This Jean Carnahan thing is starting to tick me off!!! >:-(

O

Orion_VTOL

New member
Now that she has said yes to running in her husband's place, the poles show Carnahan gaining in lead. All because of democrats who will turn out as a simpathy vote. But, that will also affect the governor race AND the white house race. All because these non-thinking, bleading heart liberals are going to vote with their emotions. And they will be voting for someone who, if elected, hasn't the credibility of that office. If she gets in, this will truely be a black election year.

:mad:
 
I disagree. The "widow" doesn't have the experience/connections needed to damage our rights severely if elected, the way her b*stard husband did. Take a deep breath, and if she gets in, just vote her butt out next cycle.
 
[The "widow" doesn't have the experience/connections needed to damage our rights severely if elected, the way her b*stard husband did]

I will have to disagree with Dennis' comments.

She is probably more dangerous because she will vote whichever way the democratic leadership tells her to. She will be a pawn of some of the most liberal elements in the Senate.

Might as well elect hillary clinton in Missouri.
 
That's why, when we get in conversations, we just have to slowly, and surely, over the next week, convince people that experience is good, and that a puppet of a political machine would be bad.
 
Isn't it amazing how the Dems say a two term Governor of one of the largest states in the Union doesn't have the experience to be President, but someone with zero experience should be a Senator.
 
Dennis, gotta disagree with you. Calif Congresswoman Lois Capps got into office the same way. Her hubby, Walter, dropped dead after serving one year. Lois was appointed to fill the rest of his term, and then won re-election on sympathy. She has voted straight Dem party line...on the few instances where its conjectured she disagreed with the Dem line, she merely abstained in voting.
She has fulfilled none of her promises on her pet issues; she continually brings up the sympathy angle...first Walter and then her daughter who died of cervical cancer last year. She is largely unavailable to constituents, she is rarely in state...just a quickie photo-op then she is gone.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
I too disagree with Dennis. She will be a puppet of the Dem leadership that put her in place.

I think Ashcroft (a good man indeed) needs to agressively campaign against HER. Mel's dead, let's talk about who my new opponent IS, and why I'm more qualified than she is. If polls are any indication, he's running out of options and has nothing to lose.

He can rightfully do this, since the governor has made a big deal out of saying who ge would appoint, he has ipso facto made her the real opponent. Ashcroft ought to demand a televised debate before the election with his new opponent.

[This message has been edited by RH (edited October 31, 2000).]
 
Good point, Bogie!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>That's why, when we get in conversations, we just have to slowly, and surely, over the next week, convince people that experience is good, and that a puppet of a political machine would be bad.[/quote]

Needless to say, the ol' double standard at play here. To the liberal media, a democrat's crap will still smell like roses.

Take this whole Lewinski thing. Do you really think that if it had been a Republican President (caught in the same situation and lies), he would still be sitting president?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monkeyleg:
Just remember that, once a Democrat is an incumbent, it's pretty darned hard to get them out. Once they start giving handouts, the sheeple just vote for them by rote.[/quote]

I agree. Mayor Daley in Chicago is a good example. He'll be mayor until he's dead. I take that back. He'll be Governor until he's dead. Everybody knows that Illinois is governed by Chicago, not Springfield.


As far as Carnahan not being able to get anything done, I'm not too sure about that. Joann Emerson took over for her husband, Bill, in Congress after he died, and (Somebody from Missery correct me if I'm wrong)and I've heard nothing about her being weak.
 
OV-- This kind of BS is SOP with both parties, and a good arguement for term limits & sunset laws.
Here we have an appointed Senator ( former Gov. Zell Miller ) facing a ( IMHO ) very weak challenger-- a former Senator who couldn't even hang on to the seat he'd won in 1980 (!!!)-- it's looking grim for Georgia...
 
Maybe I don't understand this fully. Isn't such an appointment in violation of the 17th amendment of the U.S. Constitution? It may not matter when so many people can't even understand the first 10.
Amendment XVII:

The senate of the United States shall be composed of tow Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of f such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any state may empower the executive therof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the constitution.
 
No, it's not a violation of the 17th.
There's no vacancy yet, and he's not appointing her yet. The dead man is still on the ballot. If he wins, then there will be a vacancy, and then the governor will make the appointment. All he's doing now is saying what he will do later. (Which may be a violation of an obscure federal campaign law, but no one's going to do anything about it.)

We've voted dead guys into office here in Oklahoma before, because the other guy was even worse.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RHC:
No, it's not a violation of the 17th.
There's no vacancy yet, and he's not appointing her yet. The dead man is still on the ballot. If he wins, then there will be a vacancy, and then the governor will make the appointment. All he's doing now is saying what he will do later. (Which may be a violation of an obscure federal campaign law, but no one's going to do anything about it.)

We've voted dead guys into office here in Oklahoma before, because the other guy was even worse.[/quote]

Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but doesn't the 17th ammendment only allow "temporary" appointments when a vacancy exists?
 
Jeez! Can you imagine losing an election to a dead man! Whew!

I'd give up politics and take up plumbing!

What's that? You need a plumber at that big building there? The Watergate?

:D :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top