Now this would be an interesting race!
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
July 8, 2007 5:30pm CST
It seems Cindy Whatsistname hasn't retired from the political limelight after all. She has announced that if Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi doesn't introduce Articles of Impeachment against Prs. Bush, she's going to run against her.
Ok, let's get past the spectre of blackmail here. Let's even look past the fact that Nancy Pelosi would have brought charges against Bush long ago, if she only had grounds. Let's just look at the race here.
Nancy Pelosi against Cindy Whatsitsname. Whoda thunk! ;~D
Why not though, I mean, Miss Cindy has as much right to run for the House as anyone. She even gets an automatic right to the sympathy vote. Why not base a political career on the death of her son... John Kerry based one on War Crimes. ;~D
3 people like this
2 responses
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
9 Jul 07
Boy what a race, a lefty verse a even bigger lefty. Only in San Fansico can Nancy be a "Moderate". What exactly would Bush be impeached on. I have ask libs that on MyLot, and still have not got an answer. Maybe someone on the right can expain this to me.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
9 Jul 07
Apparenlty, for some people, acting against the wishes of the UN is an impeachable offense. ;~D
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
9 Jul 07
Kittenboy, should I accuse you of lying everytime you are wrong about something?
He may have been wrong about the tons of WMD he thought was there, but he wasn't wrong about the other 3 reasons he gave... the ones Democrats and the anti Bush crowd like to forget.
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
9 Jul 07
I don't think Cindy Whatshername is politically knowledgable enough to run for high office. She was manipulated by the left to say and do things the left agreed with but had enough sense to know that to actually do would be stupid.
Whathername has not a clue. She would be defeated easily. True, it would be fun to watch.
As to articles of impeachment, I always bring up the nonsense about 9-11 being an inside job concerning the possibility of the Bush administration being a conspirator. The democrats want to impeach Bush so badly that if there was even a hint that any of that was true, there'd be an investigation like none you've ever seen.
Bush has been dropping the ball a lot lately as President, but I don't see him being impeached.
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
9 Jul 07
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/index.html
Here's a link to an explanation the impeachment proceedings. The charges of impeachment are brought in the house and the trial for impeachment is in the senate.
It is because nothing can be substantiated that impeachment proceedings are not about to be started. The people talking about impeaching President Bush either do not know what they are talking about or are merely trying to attract attention to themselves.
You are right. When charges of impeachment start to become formal, it is put up or shut up time.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
9 Jul 07
Right.. she wasn't used... that's why the DNC and the press dropped her like a bad habit the second she was no longer useful.
Did you know she camped out in front of Pelosi's house too? Did you know Pelosi wouldn't give her the time of day either?
2 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
9 Jul 07
To tell you the truth, I don't think I would mind seeing an impeachment against Prs. Bush. In an impeachment, evidence would have to be substantiated and all this rot about conspiracies would die.
As far as Miss Cindy's polical savvy goes... I wonder if she even realizes that it isn't the responsibility of the House to start impeachments... According to the U.S. Consitution, that belongs to the Senate.
2 people like this
