http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgaz...98-dd45c6396183

I think that would kick ass. Go Joe!

I was a little surprised at Joe Lieberman being mentioned. Kerik was the first cabinet pick that I really didn't like. I thought Bush was doing a very good job of re-staffing up until Homeland Security. I am starting to remember why I liked Bush right after he took office the first time.

Edited December 13, 200421 yr by Texsox

Joe Lieberman is a real possibility because it would take away a DEM seat in the Senate. The governor of CT is GOP and would appoint the acting senator until the 2006 election.

Lieberman has turned down the overtures...

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/14/...rman/index.html

Finally Joe Loserman makes the right move. A Democratic Senator in a state governed by a GOP accepting a cabinet position would be akin to Zell Miller speaking at the GOP convention. It further shrinks a Democratic Minority in the Senate and is not the best interest in either the government or the party.

Finally Joe Loserman makes the right move. A Democratic Senator in a state governed by a GOP accepting a cabinet position would be akin to Zell Miller speaking at the GOP convention. It further shrinks a Democratic Minority in the Senate and is not the best interest in either the government or the party.

Weren't you one of the guys a few weeks ago screaming that Bush should accept and appoint Dem's to some positions because he won only 51% of the vote?

 

I guess Bush is just in a lose-lose situation no matter what he does/doesn't do with you.

Actually, no I wasn't.

 

Please show me one post that I authored where I called for Bush to build a unity government. Personally, I think that the Bush administration has done such a poor job of protecting the institutions of our republic that I think any Democrat worth his salt would stay the hell away from the mess he created.

 

If you ask me if I thought that Bush's win was historically narrow - or not an actual mandate, I'd agree that those were the statements I've made.

Kerik was the first cabinet pick that I really didn't like.

So you think Alberto "we can get around this pesky Geneva Convention human rights thing" Gonzales was a good pick??

 

I'm all for Hispanics in high level office, but this guy's a first-rate assmunch.

I just plain don't like Liebermann.

 

CATCH THE JOMENTUM b****ES

So you think Alberto "we can get around this pesky Geneva Convention human rights thing" Gonzales was a good pick??

 

I'm all for Hispanics in high level office, but this guy's a first-rate assmunch.

Hey, don't forget that he was the guy responsible for vetting Kerik in the first place.

Hey, don't forget that he was the guy responsible for vetting Kerik in the first place.

Actually supposedly that was Rudy Gulliani's doing. I guess he called GWB personally and highly recommended him. He also called to apologize when all of the dirt came out.

Yes, but White House Counsel (Gonzalez) is responsible for the vetting of the nominee, in otherwords - this stuff should have been found out before the nomination was announced. And its not like he had to go far, he just had to read a copy of Newsday.

 

So he either doesn't do his job, and as a result has been promoted to AG. Or overlooks warrants for arrest, improper use of government funds, mob connections and employing illegal aliens for the chief of Homeland Security and has been rewarded with a promotion to AG. Super fun.

Whoops turned out the nanny that Kerik cited as a reason to drop out of the nomination process may have never actually existed.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/16/national...d=all&position=