# Conrad Hoeven race?



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

With Karl Rove comming to Fargo soon and the anticipated announcment of Hoeven runnning against Conrad what are your thoughts? In South Dakota I think the $ spent per vote was around $46.00!!! North Dakota is about to see politics like it has never seen before.

I don't dislike Hoeven as much as the string puller of Bush. If this race will be anything like the one in SD it will be cowardly personal attacks with no substance. Can Hoeven run an effective race based on what he has done? What has he done? We know he can afford it, look at where the money is comming from!

Any thoughts?
TC


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Where has over the course of time Conrad's money come from? NOT NORTH DAKOTA.............. :eyeroll: Conrad's already running hard very empressive TV ad last night. Cost big bucks, Hoeven would be a fool to run. Conrad walks on water, according to the ad :lol:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Hoeven is many things, but he is not stupid. There is no way that he could beat Conrad in a fair fight, and he knows it.

If this race does materialize, watch for huge amounts of money to pour into Hoeven's account from out of state. Let's not forget that Dobson's Focus on the Family group has Conrad on his list of Dems to get out of office, they will stop at nothing to make it happen. If Hoeven (or any candidate) can't win based on the issues, I think that the campaign will need to turn to personal attacks, rumor, and buzz words.

Conrad's recent TV ads seem premature to me. However, I am also puzzled and amazed by the large number of Republican-based radio ads that I hear urging constituents to call their Senators on current issues like the current Supreme Court nominee hearings.

The money on both sides is begging to flow.

Conrad is a very powerful man in Washington, and some would love to see him removed from the picture. For the good of ND, I hope that he sticks around for a long, long time.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

When it comes to outdoors issues I'm not afraid to mention how much I hate Hoeven, with other things I consider him a do nothing not having much of a backbone. With all the money that could begin to flow I'm afriad any opinions of Hoeven's will be lost in the agenda of those with the cash! Will Hoeven be able to look out for the well being of North Dakotans as well as Conrad has? Did he look out for the best interest of outdoorsman in ND or did he cater to a small group of g/o's?

I geuss I know who will get my vote.

TC


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Conrad would win because he takes care of ND's 2 biggest constituencies

Agriculture and Senior Citizens.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Surprisingly Pew and the Forum both have Conrad trailing Hoven. One thing to remember is that while he may cater to the Ag sector, it also is one that is predominately Rep in nature. Also the current ads running underscore the weakness that Conrad has. He is touting the Highway bill and it will be one of the most picked through pieces of legislation now that Katrina has left her wake in the south.

I can accept Dorgan, may not like him or agree with him, but Conrad is a different color politician. He has never faced anyone with the name recognition or statewide support that Hoven would have. Plus Hoven will be at home in the state during the campaign. Conrad will not. With the amount of money that will flow into ND from this match up. We may see another SD upset in the making.

A sitting Senator should not be polling behind even a popular Governor. Taxes, Taxes Taxes!!!! That is the difference. Conrad will vote to not end[extend- in my original post, end is what I mean't] the Death tax. This will rankle a lot of ND family farmers. Conrad will get the FU support, but Farm Bureau is as strong and will come down on the side of Hoven.

With all that being said neither are my choice for the job. From a sportsmen point of view, we should support Hoven. Get him the heck out of the Gov office.

If he runs, I will post up a list of real issue points that Conrad cannot walk away from. All of them are hot button points for voters of this state at some level. He is very very beatable with the proper candidate running against him especially if that person has an effective campaign manager!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Conrad will vote *to not extend* the Death tax. This will rankle a lot of ND family farmers.


WHy would farmers want it extended?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Thanks Bob for proofing my post.! I mean't to say end the Death Tax!


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

John Hoeven to replace Kent Conrad? Why? How has Conrad not been good for North Dakota? What is to be gained by sending Hoeven? Hoeven would just be another republican face in Washington. I'm still trying to figure out if we are going in the right direction under this administration and the republican majority it represents. I'm not sure if we want everyone in Washington to be republican. It kind of scares me because historically it is not the American way.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

rooster: nice post. I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think anyone we send from North Dakota to Washington will support agriculture. No politician from North Dakota could survive if he or she did not.

I dislike Hoeven as governor because he has supported the g/o's at the expense of sportsmen. If you are a hunter he is not your friend, he is the friend of business period.

At the same time he would do less damage to sportsmen in Washington than in North Dakota. Conrad and Dorgan would be ok if they were not loyal to their party ahead of all else.

I would hate myself for voting for Hoeven for dog catcher after the double cross he has pulled on sportsmen, but I would do it to take away support of some radical left agendas that still persist in Washington. I think if a few prominent democrats are sent home it will ultimately be good for the democratic party, not just us conservatives. The democrats have strayed from their traditional values, and only some serious losses will make them face that reality.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

As much as I dislike Conrad ( "I will fill the term, but will not run for election"). To lose the clout that he has gained on the hill would be bad for all of ND. Like 'im or not, his tenure is important to the state. Hoeven would be another do-nothing freshman senator for at least ten years, if he ever did get off the dime. Burl


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

When you talk about tenure, take a hard look at Coleman from MN. He is a freshman Sen and is leading on some very important issues. What really is the biggest problem with Conrad is more about party loyalty than ND loyalty.

Strip away the BS and look at what he has or has not done for the state! Not what he says, but really what he has done. We sat with Dorgan, Pomeroy,Conrad,Dashle and Johnson in Washington during the Clinton years. Yet we could not get a favorable outcome on the Missouri River issue.

Conrad sponsored and supported bills that have hurt ND farmers and small towns with rail service, but walks away from that and try's to blame it on Bush, when in reality it was legislation pushed and passed and signed under Clinton and the Dem Sen under Dashle.

Then look back at the 97 flood, neither Dorgan or Conrad had enough clout in the party with a sitting Dem Pres to get aid into ND without deal making.

Then their is Conrad's math. For most of the 2004 election cycle he drug around a chart showing how we went from surplus to deficits. That part was true, but not the figures he was spouting. The surplus numbers where based on a continued growth in GDP that the GAO later revised after the attack on 9/11. In his world he projected that growth would have continued even with 9/11.

In regards to the bases, here in the state. Most political pundits believed that the bases in ND would be gone because of the up coming election. Giving the challenger that as a football to kick for a goal. Reality was that the bases had value recognized and they where spared. Did Conrad or Dorgan really cause that?

Now we look at the pork, we have real disasters in the south, but neither Dorgan or Conrad have offered up any solutions other than raising taxes! No mention of review of the hi way bill. Dorgan wants a windfall tax on oil companies. I do not like the gas prices or heating bills, but neither offer any solutions other than the false hope of ethanol!

Now take a look at the judges that have come up for appointment. We all got a civics lesson on the Roberts hearings. Conrad will have no choice but to vote yes, but do not be surprised if Dorgan does not. This is a prime example of what is wrong with the national Dem party. If Dorgan and Conrad were doing what the people of ND wanted he would have stepped forward on a lot of the past nominees and not voted to filibuster.

Please list any significant legislation that Dorgan,Pooperboy and Conrad have authored that was passed that was not done with a Rep co-sponsor! Conrad is very anti gun in his past voting, he is pro tax and increased spending. Every spending bill that has been passed and signed by Bush other than military Conrad has said it is not enough! He usually has voted for higher spending bills or amendments than what get passed.

Look past party lines and instead look at the man. ND has not had a bigger snake represent us in the last 80 years, unless it is Pooperboy!


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Ron, as I read your post I thought gees, Ron doesn't really seem to have much substance and sounds like he is spouting a bunch of political rhetoric and then I read your last sentence and then I thought.....Gees that is really bad! I think I will vote for Conrad unless you can come up with something better than that bunch of bs!!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

DJ like I posted before, when the time comes I will give a blow by blow listing of the things that Conrad claims, and what he has done. I will also list the campaign promises he made along with each time he has voted to increase our taxes along with wanting more spending on the appropriation bills over the last 12 years.

What i listed is simply a brief overview that is accurate and contrary to his current ads along with his previous ads and promises. From my point of view we need people from farm states like ND that also care about the wetlands and native grass lands left. Conrad's position and voting record while being good for farmers, is been a very bad thing for wetlands. His positions and support to weaken the Swampbuster provisions along with funding for enforcement are just one example.

Instead he trots out a Open land initiative which has no chance of passing with funding being tight. It is just another smoke screen put up.

Like or dislike what I have said, it remains all in the public record. Conrad has not been good for wetlands across this nation and is pushing the biggest threat in ethanol to CRP and the rest of our wetlands in this state.

When you support and push for subsidy payments for new acres derived from current wetlands, and native grasslands then we as sportsmen of this state and every state loose! That alone is enough to send him down the road. He will not return to ND once he is out of office.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I remember when Senator Young would run for reelection back in the 60's. He was always spouting clout. I don't think there is much to the clout theory. When Conrad went in I think he was near immediately on the agriculture committee that Young was on. 
DJRooster go read Ron's post again. He addressed what a young freshman Senator is capable of, he addressed party loyalty over what is right, he discussed the Missouri river issue, he addressed the lack of attention to the railroad, Conrad's performance and attention to the flood in Grand Forks, and on and on. I can not believe you did not see the substance. You wouldn't just be trying to confuse the logically challenged would you??????????
Like I said previously a politician can not survive in North Dakota without supporting agriculture, so no matter who you get they will support agriculture. There are other issues that are not a given. First in my mind is second amendment. Other issues include taxes, welfare, national defense, the supreme court appointees, and many more important decisions soon to be before the senate. 
Like Ron said he didn't accomplish much with a fellow democrat in the white house, nor did he accomplish much with a democratic controlled house and senate. Who do you think would have more influence with a republican president, and a republican controlled congress???? This is more important than a game, but the strategies are somewhat the same.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Wouldn't it be nice if we could elect people that would consider the overall state of the country and reject pork. And a president with the nads to veto any spending with pork in it.

Reps. Tom DeLay and Don Young 
Are Co-Porkers of the Month

(Washington, D.C.) - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today named *House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas*) and Transportation and *Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska)* Co-Porkers of the Month :eyeroll: for their response to requests to offset the costs of Hurricane Katrina relief. According to a September 14 Washington Times article, Rep. DeLay declared an "ongoing victory" in the effort to cut spending, and that the Republicans had "pared [the government] down pretty good."   While claiming to be receptive to proposed offsets, Mr. DeLay said that "nobody has been able to come up with any yet." He added that cutting the 6,000 earmarks in the recently-passed $295 billion Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (TEA-LU) would adversely affect "important infrastructure" and the economy, *and it would be "right" to borrow the money to pay for Katrina relief.* :sniper:

Rep. Young had a much more curt response when asked by a Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reporter about redirecting the combined $450 million for the Gravina Island and Knik Arm (renamed Don Young's Way)* bri*dges to hurricane victims: "They can kiss my ear." He then called such a request the "dumbest thing I've ever heard." 
BOBM INSERT HERE 
NOTE ONE OF THESE BRIDGES COSTING 250 MILLION GOES TO AN ISLAND WITH 50 RESIDENTS THEY COULD BUY EACH ONE OF THEM A 1 MILLION DOLLAR BOAT AND SAVE 200 MILLION

Rep. Young added insult to this injury to taxpayers and common sense by stating that Louisiana did quite well in the highway bill (failing to note changed circumstances, like the lack of a bridge over Lake Pontchartrain) and that he had helped the seafood industry raise $50,000 for hurricane victims. The money came from a September 9 charity golf tournament in Roslyn, Washington, yet Young said "I raised enough money to give back to them voluntarily, and that's it." *These comments came several days after a spokesman for Mr. Young called the pork for relief idea "moronic."* :eyeroll: :sniper: :sniper:

*Unfortunately, Rep. DeLay's and Rep. Young's comments will confirm what taxpayers already think about the lack of leadership to cut wasteful programs in the Republican-led Congress, which has presided over the largest increase in federal spending since the Great Society.* :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

Both legislators have ignored savings that could come from CAGW's Congressional Pig Book, which identified 13,977 pork projects totaling $27.3 billion in the fiscal 2005 appropriations bills. Projects included $6.3 million for wood utilization research, $2 million for the buy back of the USS Sequoia Presidential Yacht, and $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation. The highway bill included "important infrastructure" like $2.3 million for landscaping enhancements along the Ronald Reagan Freeway in Ventura County, $1.8 million to construct a visitor interpretive center at the Gray Fossil Site in Gray, Tennessee, and $432,000 to establish a transportation museum on the Navy Pier in Chicago. Rescinding such projects would do nothing to harm the economy or essential transportation priorities.

Reps. DeLay and Young, and their colleagues, have other resources at their disposal for cutting budget fat. CAGW's report Prime Cuts 2005 catalogues 600 recommendations throughout the government that if enacted could save taxpayers $232 billion in fiscal year 2006 and $2 trillion over the next five years. Recommendations range from ending corporate welfare to eliminating outdated and expensive agricultural subsidies. President Bush proposed cutting or eliminating 150 programs in fiscal 2006, saving taxpayers about $15 billion. *The web site for the Office of Management and Budget meticulously documents the justifications for each recommendation. * These proposals could be brought to the House floor for a vote with Mr. DeLay's help.

*Instead of kissing Don Young's ear, taxpayers should shout loud and clear they want him and his colleagues to give up their pork and cut the fat. * :beer: 
For adding all Hurricane Katrina relief to the deficit without agreeing to offsetting cuts and exaggerating *the fiscal competence of the Republican Congress,* :******: :******:

CAGW names Reps. Tom DeLay and Don Young Co-Porkers of the Month for September 2005.

Citizens Against Government Waste is the nation's largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government. Porker of the Month is a dubious honor given to lawmakers, government officials, and political candidates who have shown a blatant disregard for the interests of taxpayers


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pag ... _summaries

GO TO THIS WEB SITE AND LOOK AROUND IT SHOULD DRIVE YOU NUTS I AM SO FED UP WITH THE REPUBLICANS I COULD SPIT. THEY RUN ON SMALLER GOVT GET ELECTED AND DO JUST THE OPPOSITE AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE WORSE AND *ITS BECAUSE THE AVERAGE CITIZEN IN THIS COUNTRY IS TOO STUPID TO PAY ANTTENTION AND HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE* OR IS ONE OF THOSE IDIOTS THAT WANT THEIR SENATOR AND CONGRESS MEN TO "BRING HOME THE BACON".


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

another article showcasing our wonderful congress

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 12:00 AM

Rep. Duke Cunningham, R-Calif.: home sale

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.: family ties

Close-up
13 challenged over ethics

By Chuck Neubauer
Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON - A watchdog group, naming what it calls "the 13 most corrupt members of Congress," is calling for ethics investigations of some of the most prominent political leaders on Capitol Hill in a report to be released tomorrow.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) claims in its report that the 13 members violated a variety of congressional ethics rules, among them Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Majority Whip Roy Blunt.

The bipartisan list includes three Californians - House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, a conservative Republican; Rep. Maxine Waters, a staunch liberal Democrat; and Republican Rep. Duke Cunningham.

Cunningham is one of two House members whose residences have been searched as part of separate federal criminal investigations. The other, Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., also is named on CREW's list.

Three of the people on the list - Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont.; Rep. Robert Ney, R-Ohio; and Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla., are cited for their dealings with one time super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff who is the subject of congressional and federal grand-jury investigations.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, criticized both parties for failing to police ethics.

*Representatives for some of the 13 congress members dismissed the report as "pure politics*." :eyeroll:

The report is called "Beyond DeLay: The 13 Most Corrupt Members of Congress" and is based, CREW said, on news articles and other documents. The group has been outspoken in criticizing House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, for what Sloan calls his ethical lapses.

The 13 congressional figures recommended for investigation by the watchdog group are:

• Sen. Frist, R-Tenn.: The report accused him of violating federal campaign-finance laws in how he disclosed a campaign loan. It also called for an inquiry over his recent sale of stock in HCA, his family's hospital corporation. The sale has raised questions about possible insider dealing. Frist aides confirmed Friday that the SEC is investigating.

• Rep. Blunt, R-Mo.: He was criticized for trying to insert provisions into bills that in one case would have benefited a client of his lobbyist son and, in the other case, the employer of his lobbyist girlfriend, now his wife.

• Sen. Burns: Questions arose over $3 million in appropriations he earmarked for a Michigan tribal client of lobbyist Abramoff. The senator received substantial campaign contributions from Abramoff and various clients.

• Rep. Ney: The chairman of the House Administration Committee went on a golf outing to Scotland in 2002 arranged by Abramoff at a time when the congressman was trying to insert a provision into legislation to benefit one of Abramoff's tribal clients. The tribe arranged for funds to pay a portion of the trip.

But Ney reported to the House that the trip was paid entirely by the National Center for Public Policy Research, *a conservative think tank that denied paying any of the costs.* :eyeroll:

• Rep. Feeney: He incorrectly reported that a golf outing to Scotland with Abramoff in 2003 was *paid for by the National Center for Public Policy Research, which denied it.* A Feeney aide said the Congressmen was misled

• Rep. Pombo: He paid his wife and brother $357,325 in campaign funds in the last four years. He also supported the wind-power industry before the Department of Interior without disclosing that his parents received hundreds of thousands of dollars in royalties from wind-power turbines on their ranch.

• Rep. Waters: The report cites a December 2004 Los Angeles Times investigation *disclosing how members of the congresswoman's family have made more than $1 million in the past eight years *by doing business with companies, candidates and causes that Waters has helped.

• Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.: The senator encountered controversy over disclosures that local Pennsylvania taxpayers paid for his children's schooling while they lived in Virginia. *Santorum maintained he did nothing wrong,* :eyeroll: and he has since pulled his children out of the school, according to news reports.

• Reps. Cunningham and Jefferson: Both are under federal investigation. Cunningham, who has announced he will not run for re-election, faces questions over his dealings with *a defense contractor who allegedly overpaid him when he purchased Cunningham's house*. Jefferson is under scrutiny for his role in an overseas business deal.

• Rep. Charles Taylor, R-N.C.: Questions have been raised about his private business interests, including a savings and loan in Asheville and business interests in Russia.

• Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., and Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz.: Musgrave was accused of misusing her congressional office for campaign purposes. Renzi was accused of financing portions of his 2002 campaign with improper loans.

Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

townhall.com

Appalled over pork
Bruce Bartlett 
September 27, 2005

Last week I had an interesting experience. I was asked to testify before a hearing of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. I made it clear to them that I was a Republican, but they said they wanted me anyway. I suppose that they knew that I have become very disturbed by the Republican Party's fiscal policy and they presumed that I would attack it. I did not disappoint them.

I explained that I am not particularly a deficit hawk, nor do the size of the Bush tax cuts bother me. What really bothers me is the orgy of spending by Republicans. It is just appalling that the recent highway bill had *5,000 "earmarks" in it.* *These are almost without exception, utterly unjustified pork barrel projects.*

I am further appalled by President's Bush's unwillingness to use his veto pen to maintain some semblance of fiscal discipline. :******: He is the first president to serve a full term without vetoing anything since John Quincy Adams, who served from 1824 to 1828.

Adams perhaps had the excuse that his father, President John Adams (1796-1800), didn't veto anything, either. But President Bush cannot use that excuse. His father vetoed 29 bills in his four years in office (1988-1992).

When I complain about this to the rapidly dwindling number of friends I have in the White House, they always tell me that it is very hard to veto bills when a Congress controlled by your own party passes them. :******: :******: But this excuse is just total humbug, as the Brits might say. Franklin D. Roosevelt vetoed a record 372 bills, every one of them passed by Congresses controlled by his party. Other Democrats have also shown no unwillingness to veto bills passed by Democratic Congresses. John F. Kennedy vetoed 12 bills, Lyndon Johnson vetoed 16, and Jimmy Carter vetoed 13.

*But pork barrel projects-even tens of billions of dollars worth of them-are not what has dug us into a fiscal hole. It is the rapidly escalating cost of entitlement programs*. President Bush is well aware of the problems in this area. He eloquently explained the deteriorating fiscal condition of the Social Security program in many speeches this year, as part of his effort to reform that program and stabilize its finances for future generations.

He was unsuccessful in large part, I believe, because he made the finances of the Medicare program-which was in far worse shape than Social Security to begin with-vastly worse by adding a huge, unfunded drug benefit. The Medicare program was already bankrupt and should have been the primary focus of Bush's reform effort. Instead, he not only ignored Medicare's looming crisis, he made it an order of magnitude worse.

By contrast, Social Security is in great financial shape and nowhere near the imminent collapse that faces Medicare in just a few short years. Here are the facts as reported by the Social Security and Medicare actuaries earlier this year. The unfunded liability of Social Security in perpetuity is $11.1 trillion. The unfunded liability of Medicare is $68.1 trillion, of which $18.2 trillion is accounted for just by the recently enacted drug benefit.

In short, even if President Bush had been successful in enacting a perfect Social Security reform bill, one that completely eliminated that program's unfunded liability, *we would still be $7 trillion worse off as a result of the extraordinarily ill-considered drug benefit. * To put it another way, we could repeal the drug benefit, finance Social Security forever with no benefit cuts or tax increases, and still cut $7 trillion off our national indebtedness.

Why the Democrats don't pick up on this idea is a mystery to me. Almost none of them supported the drug bill-on Friday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) reminded me that he had voted against it-so they have nothing to lose. :beer: The program hasn't really even taken effect yet, so no one would lose anything they now have. Seniors would lose only a future benefit that few seem to be keen on anyway.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, told CBS News last week that the growing costs of the Iraq war and the new burdens created by hurricanes Katrina and Rita mean that the drug bill must be reopened for discussion. "We've got to cancel it, go back to square one," he said. "It was a bad idea to start with." :beer:

*Unfortunately, President Bush's reaction to any suggestion that the drug bill even be postponed has been outrage and the promise of a veto*. :eyeroll: :******: "I signed the Medicare reform proudly," he said earlier this year, "and any attempt to&#8230;take away&#8230;prescription drug coverage under Medicare will meet my veto."

It would be ironic if the only bill of his presidency he absolutely should not veto became the only one he did veto.

Bruce Bartlett is a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a Townhall.com partner organization.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

I just noticed your picture by your username. Bob, I always wondered what you looked like. Nice picture, although your nose is a little bigger than I had it figured!! Hoeven has decided at this point not to run so this is probably in his best interest and North Dakota's best interest.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I just noticed your picture by your username. Bob, I always wondered what you looked like


His name is Duke, hes better looking than I am :wink: and he knows more about politics than you do, just from osmosis laying on the floor next to me while I type. :lol: :lol:

Somebody dumped him on the road out in front of my house about a year ago with heart worms and no training :eyeroll: My kids dragged him in so $500.00 bucks worth of vet bills later and a year of teaching him commands and hes healthy and listens pretty good ( most of the time  ). I can't understand why anyone would breed one of these english bulldogs on purpose, conformation of a Rhino.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Hard to argue that...He probably does no more about politics that I do and I bet he's more trainable than I am too if you ask my wife!


----------

