I'm not sure the Republicans are quite ready to nominate a black woman for President who, ummmm, isn't exactly married to a dude.
But if they do, then I will be very, very impressed, and will probably vote for her!
common on... what evidence do you have of this? This is such a huge sterotype and it needs to be "squished". And what would "Not being married to a dude" have to do with anything? Am I sensing a little "sexual preference" issue... or what exactly is your point?
You're the one who claims to be a Republican ... you tell me what people would say. How many politicians (especially Republicans) get nominated in this country without being "good family people?"
And there are many, many stories out there that suggest that she just might be gay. Could that hurt her in a political party that includes people who think that gays are defective? Oh yeah. It doesn't matter if it is true or not ... all that matters is if whoever she runs against has their people start a whisper campaign, and she loses large parts of the country instantly.
So yes, the fact that she's not married (and therefore not a family person and even * gasp * possibly gay) would probably kill her chances of getting the Republican nomination.
But if the Republicans could distance themselves from the evangelicals long enough to make a decision based on qualifications and intelligence (a nice change of pace, no doubt), and as a result she got nominated, nobody would be happier about it than me.
You're the one who claims to be a Republican ... you tell me what people would say. How many politicians (especially Republicans) get nominated in this country without being "good family people?"
And there are many, many stories out there that suggest that she just might be gay. Could that hurt her in a political party that includes people who think that gays are defective? Oh yeah. It doesn't matter if it is true or not ... all that matters is if whoever she runs against has their people start a whisper campaign, and she loses large parts of the country instantly.
So yes, the fact that she's not married (and therefore not a family person and even * gasp * possibly gay) would probably kill her chances of getting the Republican nomination.
But if the Republicans could distance themselves from the evangelicals long enough to make a decision based on qualifications and intelligence (a nice change of pace, no doubt), and as a result she got nominated, nobody would be happier about it than me.
But if she did get the nomination, imagine, with the scenario you described she'd get 99.9% of the vote. Dems could nominate Christ himself and lose...........Forgive me Father.
I'd rather be fishing.
Read: "Ripping lips" for u PETAns
Semper ubi sub ubi, for the Romans out there.
You're the one who claims to be a Republican ... you tell me what people would say. How many politicians (especially Republicans) get nominated in this country without being "good family people?"
And there are many, many stories out there that suggest that she just might be gay. Could that hurt her in a political party that includes people who think that gays are defective? Oh yeah. It doesn't matter if it is true or not ... all that matters is if whoever she runs against has their people start a whisper campaign, and she loses large parts of the country instantly.
So yes, the fact that she's not married (and therefore not a family person and even * gasp * possibly gay) would probably kill her chances of getting the Republican nomination.
But if the Republicans could distance themselves from the evangelicals long enough to make a decision based on qualifications and intelligence (a nice change of pace, no doubt), and as a result she got nominated, nobody would be happier about it than me.
But if she did get the nomination, imagine, with the scenario you described she'd get 99.9% of the vote. Dems could nominate Christ himself and lose...........Forgive me Father.
I agree in large part (99.9% might be a couple points high, but ... ). If she got the nomination, I think she would be hard to beat.
And I firmly believe that the first minority elected Pres will have to be either a Republican or an extremely conservative Democrat. They will simply need to cross-over appear to get votes from both parties.
Well Dems, what a frontrunner for you. GA and REmax, I would consider getting involved with your party and spending less time trying to convince Reps they're wrong. That hag has a snowballs chance in you know where of getting elected. Oh sure, she does well in the lib strongholds, so would Peewee Herman if he ran Dem. Even ol' Bill didn't want to put his eggs in her basket. What a joke! I hope she fronts the ticket. You guys have worn out the hind teat lately but maybe there's just enough left to keep you alive.
Nov. 6 every two years is an important day to remember, see ya there.
Wrong, ursusmissoulus. I don't have a "party." I try my best to analyze each candidate's position on the issues, form a sense of his or her personal integrity, and make a decision as to who I think would be most effective in the job. I believe Bill Clinton was a dishonest, unethical, habitual liar. I thank God he's a part of our past, not our present or future. I also would hate to see Hillary Clinton rise any further (or do any more damage) than she's already done. Similarly, I believe George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are hypocritical, sleazy, ineffective bumps on a log. I could give you a lot of the reasons why, but I won't waste the space. You would not agree with me (funny, you would probably say I'm a smart, good guy if I told you all the reasons I detest the Clinton's ... but you would think I'm a fool for my views on Bush/Cheney). That is the very essence of why I do not belive in that "my party" or "your party" stuff. I believe unwavering Democrats or unwavering Republicans are blind followers. The same with "liberals" and "conservatives" ... meaningless fodder.
Joined: 25 Jan 2003 Posts: 2137 Location: The Lords personal toilet, otherwise known as Battle Creek, MI. 765 eGriz Bucks
Cheney had experience in the Cabinety of the first Bush administration that helped with making him a Vice-President. Texas is a hell of alot larger and has more people that helped make Bush viable for the Presidency.
"Well, why not 112%? Why not 500 percent or 1,300 percent or 38 billion percent? I mean if he can crank it up beyond 100%, why not? What's stopping him exactly?" ----Floyd Landis to Outside Magazine on athletes saying they gave 110%
Cheney had experience in the Cabinety of the first Bush administration that helped with making him a Vice-President. Texas is a hell of alot larger and has more people that helped make Bush viable for the Presidency.
why we wont see president martz
class 1996
Progressives look at reality through the lens of Liberalism
Cheney had experience in the Cabinety of the first Bush administration that helped with making him a Vice-President. Texas is a hell of alot larger and has more people that helped make Bush viable for the Presidency.
why we wont see president martz
OK, well it turns out that the president could be dumber. There's always a silver lining.
Joined: 05 Nov 2002 Posts: 1549 Location: Corner of No and Where 615 eGriz Bucks
Sitting senators make very, very bad presidential candidates. The very nature of the senate demands compromise and it usually takes the form of contradictory votes on damn near every issue. Clinton was able to paint a good man - Dole - as a flip flopper because of this and Bush was able to paint Kerry in the same light. Guess what - Hillary and George Allen have both made contradictory votes on many, many issues.
If one party nominates a governor and the other nominates a senator, the election won't be close. The governor will win every time. The only exception might be McCain but I seriously doubt that he can win a primary dominated by neo-cons (that hate him) and evangelicals (that hate him).
If the Dems are smart they will nominate Richardson - he'll probably beat just about anyone that can actually make it through a GOP primary. He's just too damn hard to attack with the standard GOP bag-o-tricks. He's been a governor, so he's got the "I know how to balance budgets because I've been doing it for years as Governor" card to throw out there. He's actually cut taxes in New Mexico and the chamber of commerce folks love him. The socially liberal, fiscally conservative tag plays well in national elections.
If the Republicans are smart, they'll nominate Romney. He's got the "culture war" scars from the gay marriage fiasco in MA to make it through the primary and as a sitting governor, he doesn't have any votes on record that tie him too closely to the Bush adminstration. He'll carry some votes in New England, which would mitigate the western states that Richardson would tilt to the Dems. He has the capacity to energize a very weary GOP base and that might be the key to victory in 2008.
<Shrug>. I have little faith that this will actually happen. The Democrats never cease to amaze me with their capacity for self-destruction and I think that the Republicans are headed down the road of exclusionary politics, thus destroying the big tent party that Reagan built.
-------------------------------------------------------
The best way to predict the future is to create it.
-----Peter Drucker
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
class 1996
