i'd support a admendment to inpose term limits. that
is what it would take.
--- Kendall David Corbett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Ken,
>
> What is this now? Four times we've agreed!?!
>
> A couple of months ago, I got an email from the DNC
> asking if party members thought that the party
> should target Democrats that were voting like
> Republicans. Because of the way Congressional
> leadership is selected, this would be shooting
> ourselves in the foot, because even if these Dems
> don't follow the party line, as long as they remain
> Democrats, they count toward the totals necessary
> for a majority.
>
> If you pit a new Democratic candidate against an
> incumbent in the primary, it makes it easier for an
> opponent to be elected. I'd say the same thing if I
> were a Republican and disaffected with the party
> leadership.
>
> As a matter of fact, this is why the Republicans
> backed away from the "Contract For (on?) America,"
> which proposed term limits. Wyomings lone member of
> Congress was originally elected as part of the Newt
> Gingrich reformation, and promised in her first
> campaign to be in for 6 years and come home. If
> she's relected in November, it'll be her 6th term.
> After she was elected, she told the voters that she
> hadn't realized how the seniority system works,
> although several people wrote Letters to the Editor
> of the major state newspaper (including me) pointing
> this out.
>
> Kendall
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: ken barber [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Fri 4/7/2006 8:43 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: article...
>
>
>
> i think you r right. the libby case will take well
> past the 2006 elections to get going. instead of
> hoping for a bombshell, the dems might try an
> actuall
> agenda.
>
> --- Kendall David Corbett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > ...and in order for Congress to impeach Bush, the
> > Democrats would need
> > to be in control, which isn't likely unless some
> > real bombshells come
> > out of the Libby trial, which will be delayed
> until
> > after the 2006
> > elections, IMHO.
> >
> > Kendall
> >
> > An unreasonable man (but my wife says that's
> > redundant!)
> >
> > The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
> the
> > unreasonable one
> > persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
> > Therefore, all
> > progress depends on the unreasonable man.
> >
> > -George Bernard Shaw 1856-1950
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kathleen Salkin
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 3:43 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: article...
> >
> > I don't like him any more than you do, Anthony,
> and
> > I would love to
> > see him get impeached but to be scrupulously fair,
> I
> > need to see
> > evidence.
> >
> > I also think what they did to Bill Clinton was
> > horrible and I think
> > turnabout would be fair play, but I don't see it
> > happening. He's too
> > wily.
> >
> > Kat
> >
> > On 6 Apr 2006, at 18:39, Anthony Arnold wrote:
> >
> > I have given up on hope that Bush and Chaney are
> > going to be removed,
> > so we
> > better live through the next 3 years and promise
> > ourselves that the
> > mistakes
> > made won't be repeated. Being in a red state
> where
> > majority
> > appreciate what
> > Bush and Chaney are doing for everyone of us, I'm
> > just amazed that
> > people
> > aren't willing to smell the roses.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Anthony
> > Visit my website at www.anthonyarnold.net
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cerebral Palsy List
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> > Behalf Of
> > Kathleen Salkin
> > Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 5:06 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: article...
> >
> > If this is true, this is shocking...but before
> going
> > all half-cocked,
> > do consider the source. This guy is under
> criminal
> > investigation and
> > is probably naming names to cut a deal. Until I
> see
> > an indictment
> > for Bush come out, I'm going to be sceptical.
> >
> > I loathe Bush, but he is innocent until proven
> > guilty.
> >
> > Kat
> >
> >
> > On 6 Apr 2006, at 17:03, Mike Collis wrote:
> >
> > I was willing to give Bush the benefit of the
> > doubt...
> >
> > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12187153/ but if this
> is
> > true, it raises
> > danger
> > signals...
> >
> > -----------------------
> >
> > To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY
> > list, go here:
> >
> >
>
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
> >
> > -----------------------
> >
> > To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY
> > list, go here:
> >
> >
>
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
> >
> > -----------------------
> >
> > To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY
> > list, go here:
> >
> >
>
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
> >
> > -----------------------
> >
> > To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY
> > list, go here:
> >
> >
>
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
> >
> > -----------------------
> >
> > To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY
> > list, go here:
> >
> >
>
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-----------------------
To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
|
