THE TOP TIER
Jim Webb
Webb is the closest thing to a frontrunner for Obama's VP these days. A former Republican, he served as Secretary of the Navy for Ronald Reagan. Webb defeated George "Macaca" Allen to become a junior senator in Virginia.
Pro: Webb is a good foil for Obama's post-partisan message, and he's got the military credentials to match up with John McCain. He's good at playing the attack dog, which will let Obama take the high road. And he's from trending-blue Virginia, which would be a great pickup in November for Democrats. He's also pro-guns.
Con: Webb can be a little out-of-control as attack dogs go.
---
Hillary Clinton
This ticket is either a dream or a nightmare. Some see it as the only way to reunite the Democrats in time for November. Other see it as the fastest way to destroy the Obama brand.
Pro: Strong appeal with working class voters and women.
Con: See Iraq War vote, 3AM phone call, Bill Clinton in South Carolina, and the month of March.
---
Bill Richardson
You know him, you love him; he's the New Mexico governor with a heart of gold, a kickin' mustache, and -- thanks to James Carville -- a new nickname.
Pro: You've heard them all before. A foreign policy resume a mile long, executive experience, and a lock with Hispanic voters. And he picked Obama, despite his Clinton ties.
Con: Did you watch any of the debates?
---
Joe Biden
He is Mr. Foreign Policy. He also claims the best line of the primary season thus far. Too bad no one told Iowans he was running for President.
Pro: He trumps any foreign policy claims that McCain brings to the table. He can hit McCain hard.
Con: He tends to hit everyone hard. And he's a Washington figure, which could hurt a campaign running against Washington.
---
Brian Schwietzer
Never heard of him? You should. Schweitzer has been Montana's governor since 2005, and is currently one of the most popular governors in the country.
Pro: In addition to his executive experience, Schweitzer has spent a good amount of time around the world (including the Middle East) in his former life as an irrigation developer. His popularity and his pro-gun stance could help Obama in the Mountain West area. He also refused PAC and special interest money during his 2004 campaign. He's also criticized the economic consequences of the Iraq War, an approach that Obama has recently adopted.
Con: Despite his travels, he has no official foreign policy experience. He also doesn't bring in any delegates from his own state (though that could be offset if he helps in places like North Dakota, Wyoming and Colorado).
WORTH WATCHING
Janet Napolitano
Another popular Western governor, Napolitano has settled into a second term in McCain's very red home state. She also backed Obama early in the race.
Pros: She has proven her executive capacity in Republican territory, as well as the Southwest, which will help sway Obamicans. A female candidate could also help reunite the Democrats.
Con: Her stance on immigration could prove costly among Hispanic voters.
---
Sherrod Brown
Another governor, this one from Ohio. Brown is a favorite among progressives for his economic populism and outspoken criticism of the war.
Pro: Could help deliver an important swing state.
Con: Doesn't really satisfy the idea of a unity ticket.
---
Chuck Hagel
A Republican senator who has fought with Bush tooth and nail over the Iraq war, Hagel is one of three Republicans who voted with the Democrats over a withdrawal plan. He also has served on the Banking, Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees. Hagel has also said he's considering endorsing Sen. Obama.
Pro: Broad Senate experience. A living embodiment of Obama's commitment to work with like-minded Republicans. Also is a veteran with experience in Reagan's administration
Con: He is still a Republican (especially on abortion and health care), which would not sit well with a lot of Democrats.
---
Wesley Clark
Rhodes Scholar turned four-star general and once-presidential candidate. A star resource for Democrats on military affairs.
Pro: John McCain would have to salute him. And he has Southern appeal.
Con: Backed Clinton early and has been a very active surrogate. Not always the best politician on a national stage.
---
Kathleen Sebelius
Talk about reaching across the aisle. This Kansas governor convinced a Republican to leave his party, become a Democrat, and run as her lieutenant governor. Kansas is rife with stories of Republicans undergoing conversions, and Sebelius gets a good amount of credit for this.
Pro: Another Red-state governor with an excellent post-partisan record. Having a female VP could be a strong ticket.
Con: Sebelius didn't wow anyone with her response to the State of the Union, which raises questions about how she would do on the national stage. And her location in Kansas doesn't add much that Obama doesn't already get from Illinois.
---
Tom Daschle
The former South Dakota senator, Daschle has been a strong supporter of Obama's campaign; he's a national co-chair and is rumored to play a big part in the campaign strategy.
Pro: Can bring in votes from his home state.
Con: Weak campaigner: he lost his Senate seat while he was the sitting Majority Leader.
HONORABLE MENTION
Mike Bloomberg
Sure, most voters have never heard of him. And sure, he's never been a national player. But the current mayor of New York has been a darling of the media, as they spent months seeing if he would get into the Presidential race. Coupled with some private conversations with Obama that caused a tizzy in the fall, a Bloomberg candidacy could cause some media attention that would rival that of even John McCain.
Pros: Excellent economic record. Interested in policy minutiae. Post-partisan (former Republican switched to Independent). Media darling.
Cons: Unheard of outside his home state. It's tough not to seem like an elitist when the world 'billionaire' applies to you.
(http://www.cleary.edu/news/images/ann_coulter_headshot_003.jpg)
Quote from: stephendare on May 09, 2008, 09:48:07 PM
First transexual VP. That would be pretty novel.
and that, my friend would be...
(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1400046610.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)
lol! you are making it too easy mo!!
Quote from: Driven1 on May 09, 2008, 09:24:12 PM
(http://www.cleary.edu/news/images/ann_coulter_headshot_003.jpg)
LOVE IT!! I might have to actually vote democrat for her.
Quote from: stephendare on May 09, 2008, 10:09:41 PM
explain the huge adams apple.
Oh wait a minute, come on!
You really think she's a natural woman don't you?
HA Ha hahahaha! ::)
http://www.geocities.com/girlinside123/famous.html
That's a good source. Forget the source though, any evidence to support this? ::)
So, all tall women are now former men? The author better be careful or he/she might draw a lawsuit.
Why would I have seen any photos of her as a young girl? I am not a member of her family.
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 09, 2008, 10:56:29 PM
Why would I have seen any photos of her as a young girl? I am not a member of her family.
ROFL!!!
OK... I tried to find some "young girl" pictures, but failed - LOL. Anyway...here are some of her when she was younger I suppose...
(http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/03/05/coulter_narrowweb__300x424,0.jpg)
(http://atatude.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/ann-coulter.jpg)
(http://www.phenomonology.com/DodgeAnn/Coulter9.jpg)
No one has? Or you havent?
BTW, I havent seen pictures of Stephen Dare as a young boy but I a fairly certain "he" was born male. ::)
um...yeah
Quote from: stephendare on May 09, 2008, 11:52:43 PM
And there is a very well known list of discrepancies about her birth dates and identification.
um...yeah...so very well known that it is on wikipedia. your point being... this is the rumor-mongering we refer to.
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 09, 2008, 11:54:41 PM
No one has? Or you havent?
BTW, I havent seen pictures of Stephen Dare as a young boy but I a fairly certain "he" was born male. ::)
touche...good point. :)
I STRONGLY SUSPECT that Al Franken is a transvestite. I'm pretty sure he HAD TO BE BORN A GIRL. Here is why...
NO ONE has ever seen pictures of him as a young boy. Plus, he is a bit taller than average.
Quote from: stephendare on May 09, 2008, 11:58:37 PM
The rumor is out there, its been persistent for an awful long time, shes known to hang out in gay bars and restaurants when she isnt doing her schtick as a pretend 'conservative' and seemed to be rather fond of Matt Sanchez, the gay porn star.
oh boy... stephendare...please...stop...you are beginning to sound WAAAAY TOO MUCH like Billy Ash (internet psychic extrordinaire) in the whole "death of Seth Tobias thing"
where Seth SUPPOSEDLY wanted Filemena to do a threesome with "Tiger" (the porn star) and it was WELL-KNOWN that Seth hung out at gay bars (according to Ash).
cnbc did a very good special that exposed Ash grandly. Seth wasn't gay. Didn't know Tiger. Tiger even admitted this when tracked down by CNBC. the manager of the gay bar that Seth supposedly was at EVERY NIGHT - well, he had never seen Seth.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/23813739/
Billy Ash lies in a deposition
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qLXP5hjAZEE
I'd take Bill Richardson. Demographics in this country have evolved. Anyone who can pull hard from the black and hispanic population would be difficult to overcome, imo.
He should take George Clooney he would have hours of free campaign coverage every night on shows like extra and have more people see him than the news could ever get. McCain could get Denzel Washington the biggest celebrity friend veterans have ever had and seriously help his demographic appeal.
Quote from: stephendare on May 09, 2008, 10:09:41 PM
explain the huge adams apple.
Oh wait a minute, come on!
You really think she's a natural woman don't you?
HA Ha hahahaha! ::)
http://www.geocities.com/girlinside123/famous.html
ROLFMO. This is why I love this place. On a side note, I see your point steven. lol
Back to the focus of the thread. What does Bill Clinton think of the Obama/Clinton ticket? I would vote for Obama/Clinton. I said before I'll vote McCain if it's Obama. How old will Hillary be in 8 years?
I think that Driven has seen Eqqus one time too many.
I know she has a long face, but she is not a horse!
That's just wrong!
speaking of long faces... Why the long face John?
(http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/CARI.Kerry.gif)
OH!! That's right...you were beat by one of the best presidents EVER!!!!!
Quote from: thelakelander on May 10, 2008, 08:06:38 AM
I'd take Bill Richardson. Demographics in this country have evolved. Anyone who can pull hard from the black and hispanic population would be difficult to overcome, imo.
Considering that hispanics are currently just 7% of likely voters and blacks are 11% of likely voters, I think such an overt racial appeal is not wise politically. See page 49 for charts:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/0227_demographics_frey/0227_demographics_paper%20_and%20_table_frey.pdf
I believe he'll be able to pull a significant amount of Americans on policy alone. As far as my early statement I was thinking more in terms of something that could help tip the scales, although I could be completely wrong.
He needs to run on policy alone. Blacks will vote for him anyway out of their ties to the Dem party and probably racial solidarity. He does not want to turn the election into a racial referendum. I think he has run a non-racial campaign thus far BTW. Others have attempted to inject race into it but I dont think Obama has.
To answer the question though, if I were picking for Obama I would pick someone like Evan Bayh, a moderate red state Dem who now supports Hillary but would help appeal to moderates in the general. I hope he picks another liberal though as this will probably doom his chances.
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 11, 2008, 12:58:39 AM
He needs to run on policy alone. Blacks will vote for him anyway out of their ties to the Dem party and probably racial solidarity. He does not want to turn the election into a racial referendum. I think he has run a non-racial campaign thus far BTW. Others have attempted to inject race into it but I dont think Obama has.
Fair point. It would be nice to see this upcoming race between McCain and Obama (I'm assuming Billary is done) focus heavily on policy.
i actually agree with the author on this stephendare. like them, i also believe the leftwing policies that define the current Democratic movement, such as anti-life, pro-gay, anti-2nd amendment, will never truly catch on like wildfire in the south.
remember where Ms. Edwards is pulling sources from her story from though... Seattle. to be genuine, you must consider this before drawing any extrapolated conclusions (as Ms. Edwards errantly does) that would apply across the U.S. Seattle is definitely not Ohio - or N. Carolina or Texas or Florida or Arizona.
Quote from: stephendare on May 11, 2008, 04:02:42 PM
The Washingtonian is speculating on a possible Obama Cabinet. Most of these names are unfamiliar, so its a pretty good time to start learning them for the election. Presidencies are administrations and not just the individual that you vote for the top spot.
http://www.washingtonian.com/blogarticles/7641.html
Already speculating on the Obama cabinet? Talk about counting chickens before they hatch. There are still the little matters of (1) winning the Dem nomination and (2) winning the general election. I wouldnt start measuring for drapes in the White House quite yet. :D :D
Quote from: thelakelander on May 11, 2008, 01:12:08 AM
Fair point. It would be nice to see this upcoming race between McCain and Obama (I'm assuming Billary is done) focus heavily on policy.
Which issues draw you to Obama the most (over say Hillary Clinton or McCain)?
BTW Stephen, I cant recall who served as Dukakis' Secretary of State. Can you refresh my memory on this please? ;D
Since Che, Joseph, Fidel and Nero are all dead or nearly so... All I can think of is a party jump and PEYTON for VP. Obama-Peyton has a certain ring to it.
Perhaps Angela Davis is still around? Jane Fonda?
Ocklawaha
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 11, 2008, 08:45:16 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 11, 2008, 01:12:08 AM
Fair point. It would be nice to see this upcoming race between McCain and Obama (I'm assuming Billary is done) focus heavily on policy.
Which issues draw you to Obama the most (over say Hillary Clinton or McCain)?
Since I'm not a Democrat or Republican, I guess I'm one of those Independents these guys hope to sway one way or the other.
Obama and Billary, platform wise, are about the same. However, I've already seen 8 years of the Clintons and I'm disappointed in the way she's ran her campaign. With Billary, there's a "been there, done that" feeling in my bones.
With McCain, I have serious concerns about the economy, mass transit funding and Iraq. However, if he won, I wouldn't lose much sleep because he's about as moderate of a Republican as they come. The last thing I want is an ultra conservative Bible thumper in the White House right now.
I agree with Obama's position with the war in Iraq and I would like to see some of the money flowing over there, redirected back to the US to deal with our own domestic problems. Since we also are forced with this two party system, a switch every eight years or so helps us from going completely right or left. Obama is not the best thing since sliced bread, but I don't believe he can be any worse than the current Administration.
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 11, 2008, 12:58:39 AM
He needs to run on policy alone. Blacks will vote for him anyway out of their ties to the Dem party and probably racial solidarity. He does not want to turn the election into a racial referendum. I think he has run a non-racial campaign thus far BTW. Others have attempted to inject race into it but I dont think Obama has.
Yes you are right, others have attempted to inject race into his candidacy; just take a look at this:
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 07, 2008, 11:23:14 AM
Hillary won IN in a squeaker. She should smoke Obama in WV and KY but may lose ND (or is it SD?) and probably will lose OR. Puerto Rico could actually decide the election. That would be interesting. Still, it is tough to see how Hillary can make up the difference with her poor showing last night.
BTW, it is interesting how the "candidate of change" is benefiting from a racist vote (black in this case). 90+% for Obama in the Dem primary can be nothing else.
River, you should ban this guy from posting, he'll say anything, I think he may be, well, you know.
Quote from: stephendare on May 09, 2008, 09:09:54 PM
THE TOP TIER
Sherrod Brown
Another governor, this one from Ohio. Brown is a favorite among progressives for his economic populism and outspoken criticism of the war.
Pro: Could help deliver an important swing state.
Con: Doesn't really satisfy the idea of a unity ticket.
---
Wesley Clark
Rhodes Scholar turned four-star general and once-presidential candidate. A star resource for Democrats on military affairs.
Pro: John McCain would have to salute him. And he has Southern appeal.
Con: Backed Clinton early and has been a very active surrogate. Not always the best politician on a national stage.
---
Kathleen Sebelius
Talk about reaching across the aisle. This Kansas governor convinced a Republican to leave his party, become a Democrat, and run as her lieutenant governor. Kansas is rife with stories of Republicans undergoing conversions, and Sebelius gets a good amount of credit for this.
Pro: Another Red-state governor with an excellent post-partisan record. Having a female VP could be a strong ticket.
Con: Sebelius didn't wow anyone with her response to the State of the Union, which raises questions about how she would do on the national stage. And her location in Kansas doesn't add much that Obama doesn't already get from Illinois.
---
Mike Bloomberg
Sure, most voters have never heard of him. And sure, he's never been a national player. But the current mayor of New York has been a darling of the media, as they spent months seeing if he would get into the Presidential race. Coupled with some private conversations with Obama that caused a tizzy in the fall, a Bloomberg candidacy could cause some media attention that would rival that of even John McCain.
Pros: Excellent economic record. Interested in policy minutiae. Post-partisan (former Republican switched to Independent). Media darling.
Cons: Unheard of outside his home state. It's tough not to seem like an elitist when the world 'billionaire' applies to you.
Sherrod Brown is an Ohio US Senator, not the Governor. As a Senator, Brown would not bring Executive branch experience.
The actual Governor of Ohio, Ted Strickland, is a strong contender for the VP slot for Obama. He is popular in a state Obama had real problems with. He endorsed HRC, and as such, would be a olive branch to her partisans, if he were picked. At 66 he brings age balance as well.
Picking Strickland would not put his office at risk for GOP takeover, the way selecting Webb would.
Lastly, no Republican has won the Presidency without winning Ohio. That will be tough to do if Strickland is on the Dem ticket. That said, there is always a FIRST for everything. However, taking Ohio would be a huge leg up towards the 270 electoral votes needed.
Bloomberg is my personal favorite. He would bring a hugh amount of credibility on economic policy, while still having broad appeal to the Democratic base. His biggest downside, IMO, is he doesn't bring geographic appeal to the Democratic ticket that Strickland, Clark, Sebelius and many others would.
If Obama wants someone with a military backgraound, then Clark is the default pick there, although others have been mentioned.
Sebelious is popular and would shake up the GOP's strategy, but I think she will only be picked if Obama feels he MUST make amends to women voters, and yet can't live with H. Clinton on the ticket.
Quote from: Midway on May 12, 2008, 02:25:06 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 11, 2008, 12:58:39 AM
He needs to run on policy alone. Blacks will vote for him anyway out of their ties to the Dem party and probably racial solidarity. He does not want to turn the election into a racial referendum. I think he has run a non-racial campaign thus far BTW. Others have attempted to inject race into it but I dont think Obama has.
Yes you are right, others have attempted to inject race into his candidacy; just take a look at this:
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 07, 2008, 11:23:14 AM
Hillary won IN in a squeaker. She should smoke Obama in WV and KY but may lose ND (or is it SD?) and probably will lose OR. Puerto Rico could actually decide the election. That would be interesting. Still, it is tough to see how Hillary can make up the difference with her poor showing last night.
BTW, it is interesting how the "candidate of change" is benefiting from a racist vote (black in this case). 90+% for Obama in the Dem primary can be nothing else.
River, you should ban this guy from posting, he'll say anything, I think he may be, well, you know.
The others I am talking about injecting race into the campaign are other Democrats. I do find it ironic that the candidate of change relies on old school racial block voting and that his pastor spewed hate from the pulpit for 20 years. I am sure that if things were reversed and Obama were a white Republican, you and the media would give him the same pass. ::)
BTW, in another thread I expounded on this. Here is an excerpt:
Quote
1) Black voters have been voting by margins of 90-10 for Obama even though his views are closely aligned with Hillary and her husband was a popular former President;
2) If white voters voted in such a clear block their motivation for doing so would probably be labeled racist resistance to voting for a black candidate.
3) I think such racial block voting is bad for the country in general and for the black community in particular as it is in danger of being taken for granted;
4) I didnt invent this issue. This has been talked about by many prominent Democrats and political pundits.
vic: Strickland or Webb would also be canny political choices. I think Obama also needs someone with a little more age than him as VP (assuming he is the nominee as now appears likely).
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 12, 2008, 04:19:45 PM
Quote from: Midway on May 12, 2008, 02:25:06 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 11, 2008, 12:58:39 AM
He needs to run on policy alone. Blacks will vote for him anyway out of their ties to the Dem party and probably racial solidarity. He does not want to turn the election into a racial referendum. I think he has run a non-racial campaign thus far BTW. Others have attempted to inject race into it but I dont think Obama has.
Yes you are right, others have attempted to inject race into his candidacy; just take a look at this:
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 07, 2008, 11:23:14 AM
Hillary won IN in a squeaker. She should smoke Obama in WV and KY but may lose ND (or is it SD?) and probably will lose OR. Puerto Rico could actually decide the election. That would be interesting. Still, it is tough to see how Hillary can make up the difference with her poor showing last night.
BTW, it is interesting how the "candidate of change" is benefiting from a racist vote (black in this case). 90+% for Obama in the Dem primary can be nothing else.
River, you should ban this guy from posting, he'll say anything, I think he may be, well, you know.
The others I am talking about injecting race into the campaign are other Democrats. I do find it ironic that the candidate of change relies on old school racial block voting and that his pastor spewed hate from the pulpit for 20 years. I am sure that if things were reversed and Obama were a white Republican, you and the media would give him the same pass. ::)
BTW, in another thread I expounded on this. Here is an excerpt:
Quote
1) Black voters have been voting by margins of 90-10 for Obama even though his views are closely aligned with Hillary and her husband was a popular former President;
2) If white voters voted in such a clear block their motivation for doing so would probably be labeled racist resistance to voting for a black candidate.
3) I think such racial block voting is bad for the country in general and for the black community in particular as it is in danger of being taken for granted;
4) I didnt invent this issue. This has been talked about by many prominent Democrats and political pundits.
You are overlook a few things:
1) 100% of all presidents have been white, and 100% of all white voters have voted for a white candidate in 100% of the General Elections.
2) Very, very few whites have ever voted for a black candidate for president, until this year.
3) You completely ignore the numerous foot-in-mouth comments of Bill Clinton, which have no doubt played a part in her going from 30% black support in the polls to her current 10%. The Clinton's are not blameless in their loss of support.
4) I don't have the figures in first of me, but I'm certain the Catholic vote was overwhelming for JFK, as the first Catholic with a genuine chance of winning. Does that make Catholics religious bigots or simply proud Catholics?
Quote from: vicupstate on May 12, 2008, 04:50:08 PM
You are overlook a few things:
1) 100% of all presidents have been white, and 100% of all white voters have voted for a white candidate in 100% of the General Elections.
2) Very, very few whites have ever voted for a black candidate for president, until this year.
3) You completely ignore the numerous foot-in-mouth comments of Bill Clinton, which have no doubt played a part in her going from 30% black support in the polls to her current 10%. The Clinton's are not blameless in their loss of support.
4) I don't have the figures in first of me, but I'm certain the Catholic vote was overwhelming for JFK, as the first Catholic with a genuine chance of winning. Does that make Catholics religious bigots or simply proud Catholics?
1) I am not saying that there have not been white racist voters in the past (or even today).
2) True, but not many black candidates have run either.
3) Bill Clinton did not help her out in that respect. The Clinton's may attempted to slyly play the race card although I think this is debatable. I am no fan of the Clintons either way.
4) This (ethnic pride) is the nice way of stating it. It doesnt mean that it is a positive thing or that it doesnt represent a double standard.
I would add that many blacks are actually personally conservative entrepreneurs and church goers who would be natural Republicans. But unfortunately many of them still vote for the Dems who then go on to betray their trust and undermine their communities with failed liberal policies. Hopefully day this will change. After all, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican.
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 12, 2008, 05:00:08 PM
I would add that many blacks are actually personally conservative entrepreneurs and church goers who would be natural Republicans. But unfortunately many of them still vote for the Dems who then go on to betray their trust and undermine their communities with failed liberal policies. Hopefully day this will change. After all, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican.
Yes, I agree, if only the republicans would stop attempting to exclude black people from the polling places they might actually be able to vote for them, if they could only get through the door!
Yes they're personally conservative and have families and stores and restaurants and everything, and they even believe in God!
I guess this is an epiphanal moment for you, kind of like when Bill'o went to Sylvia's for a grilled cheese sandwich and discovered that they weren't saying "pass the iced tea, mofo".
http://www.youtube.com/v/_PtUgeouswY&hl=en
Quote from: stephendare on May 12, 2008, 08:59:18 PM
In fact, whats a good example of a failed liberal policy?
hahahaahaha!!!! ladies & gentlemen, we have a contender for "dumbest statement of the year".
pouring tons of $$ into the black hole that is the current public education system
roe v. wade (fails in that it murders - yes MURDERS - millions of unborn children -
and the radical left wing wants to call conservatives "extremists")
gun control (aka - criminals in control)
and this makes no mention of "cuttin & runnin"
Quote from: Driven1 on May 12, 2008, 09:31:08 PM
Quote from: stephendare on May 12, 2008, 08:59:18 PM
In fact, whats a good example of a failed liberal policy?
hahahaahaha!!!! ladies & gentlemen, we have a contender for "dumbest statement of the year".
pouring tons of $$ into the black hole that is the current public education system
roe v. wade (fails in that it murders - yes MURDERS - millions of unborn children - and the radical left wing wants to call conservatives "extremists")
gun control (aka - criminals in control)
and this makes no mention of "cuttin & runnin"
Stop baiting Stephen and behave yourself!
i will quote an anonymous individual...
"he is a piece of _____ who doesn't have any compunction about just making up ______ ."
now...i don't know who "he" is - or what goes in the ____ - or what "compunction" means for that matter, but it sounds FREAKY.
Quote from: stephendare on May 12, 2008, 09:57:48 PM
over 80 percent of the women who have abortions are self professed fundamentalists. Isnt the problem of abortion more a right wing christian epidemic?
i would be beside myself if some kind of proof was provided. but i speculate it is the kind of "proof" that you provided to show the world how they have been misspelling "separate" for all these millenia.
no - actually it is a left-wing radical liberal extremist-contrived, baby daddy problem.
boo. and yao.
you lied.... you said "over 80 percent of the women who have abortions are self professed fundamentalists."
the "fact" from this anti-abortionist website is "18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical"
those "born-again" types are the ones you call fundamentalist right-wing wackos.
as sure as seperate, you lied to us. twenty lashes.
LOL - hahahahahaha!!!!
you think catholics are fundamentalists....
ROFL!!!!!
even if you were right (i'll reiterate again how wrong you are and how you lied to us)... would only be 50% - not 80%).
that extreme right-winger john kerry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
case closed indeed.
hahahaha.
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 12, 2008, 05:00:08 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on May 12, 2008, 04:50:08 PM
You are overlook a few things:
1) 100% of all presidents have been white, and 100% of all white voters have voted for a white candidate in 100% of the General Elections.
2) Very, very few whites have ever voted for a black candidate for president, until this year.
3) You completely ignore the numerous foot-in-mouth comments of Bill Clinton, which have no doubt played a part in her going from 30% black support in the polls to her current 10%. The Clinton's are not blameless in their loss of support.
4) I don't have the figures in first of me, but I'm certain the Catholic vote was overwhelming for JFK, as the first Catholic with a genuine chance of winning. Does that make Catholics religious bigots or simply proud Catholics?
1) I am not saying that there have not been white racist voters in the past (or even today).
2) True, but not many black candidates have run either.
3) Bill Clinton did not help her out in that respect. The Clinton's may attempted to slyly play the race card although I think this is debatable. I am no fan of the Clintons either way.
4) This (ethnic pride) is the nice way of stating it. It doesnt mean that it is a positive thing or that it doesnt represent a double standard.
I would add that many blacks are actually personally conservative entrepreneurs and church goers who would be natural Republicans. But unfortunately many of them still vote for the Dems who then go on to betray their trust and undermine their communities with failed liberal policies. Hopefully day this will change. After all, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican.
Martin Luther King
SR. was a Republican. What evidence is there that MLK Jr. was as an adult?
Many Blacks are socially conservative, some are fiscally conservative. From my white male point of view, I suspect the reason Blacks don't vote Republican is because the GOP talks the talk, but does not walk the walk.
They talk about equality but yet they exploit racial divisions to win elections. Starting with Goldwater's opposition tot he Civil Rights Act, Nixon's Southern strategy, Reagan's 1980 'states rights' speech in Mississippi, Jesse Helms' anti-affirmative action ads, continuing through to the race baiting in the 2006 Tennessee US Senate race. Add to that the GOP candidates being too 'busy' to attend an NAACP debate earlier this year.
Until such tactics cease for a continued period of time, Blacks will understandable view the GOP with suspision.
Quoteby: Paul Schmelzer
Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 2:09:29 PM
While part of the mainstream media wasn't big on mentioning the fact in advance of his address today in Memphis, Sen. John McCain's track record on commemorating Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination 40 years ago today is a bit complicated.
As a freshman congressman in 1983, he was among a minority of Republicans who voted against honoring King with a federal holiday, explaining later that "it was not necessary to have another federal holiday, that it cost too much money, that other presidents were not recognized." When a referendum came up in his home state of Arizona, McCain supported it, but the measure was defeated. The twists and turns continue: The state's governor at the time, a Democrat, then created the holiday through an executive order, which a few years later was rescinded by Republican governor Evan Mecham. McCain supported Mecham's decision, but later changed his mind. Another referendum on the holiday, which McCain supported, failed in Arizona in 1990; it wasn't until 1992 that Arizona OK'd a holiday for King.
In 1999, McCain said he was mistaken in that first vote in 1983, and he reiterated that postion in today's speech:
We can be slow as well to give greatness its due, a mistake I made myself long ago when I voted against a federal holiday in memory of Dr. King. I was wrong and eventually realized that, in time to give full support for a state holiday in Arizona. We can all be a little late sometimes in doing the right thing, and Dr. King understood this about his fellow Americans.
Rev. Jesse Jackson, who was with King when he died, said of McCain's admission: "Better late than never."
Below the jump, video of McCain explaining to reporters that he really didn't understand who MLK was when he first voted against the holiday in 1983.
http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3624
Quote from: vicupstate on May 13, 2008, 09:41:24 AM
Many Blacks are socially conservative,
you are right - except on abortion i find. never have been able to figure that one out.
Where are you getting this information from? Most socially conservative blacks I know don't agree with abortion.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 13, 2008, 02:56:35 PM
Where are you getting this information from? Most socially conservative blacks I know don't agree with abortion.
this black lady in Washington DC (CAPITAL OF OUR COUNTRY) told me. ;)
seriously...it was when i was up in 2000 for our Great Leader's inauguration & party. she was in the hotel lobby & i struck up conversation with her.
OK - all of that IS true, but that is not the reason. generally, repubs are against the murdering of little unborn children. and dems are for this. it is no small secret that blacks vote dem overwhelmingly (though i will concede that this has been changing).
Quote from: Driven1 on May 13, 2008, 03:38:16 PM
. generally, repubs are against the murdering of little unborn children.
Except when they're Iraqis.
I personally would like to see Jim Webb, Senator from Virginia as VP. He's smart, able to refute the BS from the Repubs on the war with plain speaking and facts, and is a general bad-ass in my book. He's articulate, has a son serving in the armed forces (I would like to think something like that wouldn't matter, but it does), and has shown he can win in a heavily GOP state. He brings the same appeal for new thinking and new policies that Obama does, and would be an awesome speaker on the stump.
I didn't even read the first posts, so I didn't know you had put Webb on there, Stephen-- awesome.
Also, I personally, being very liberal, would love to see Chuck Hagel, too. He's smart, articulate, and a conservative I can respect (i.e. one who doesn't speak BS, and try to continually divide Americans against each other like Cheney, Bush, Boehner (the WORST!), DeLay, and the rest of the partisan hacks).
Quote from: Eazy E on May 13, 2008, 07:38:50 PM
Quote from: Driven1 on May 13, 2008, 03:38:16 PM
. generally, repubs are against the murdering of little unborn children.
Except when they're Iraqis.
false. we didn't force iraqi women to have abortions.
now, i suppose you meant the killing of little children in iraq. true...but can you hardly blame us? those babies would have grown up and been muslim extremist terrorists that would have had as their only ambition the destruction of you and your family. thank God for the American Republican Party. protecting our women and children in the homeland. whooooooo!!!!!!
now...here is another Ann Coulter pic for u...
(http://www.politicalfrenzy.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/ann_coulter.jpg)
The only problem with recruiting Webb would be that his seat would probably be lost to a republican as a result of his vacating it.
But he is an honest straight talking individual who seems to have a pretty strong moral and ethical compass.
Quote from: Driven1 on May 13, 2008, 08:05:15 PM
Quote from: Eazy E on May 13, 2008, 07:38:50 PM
Quote from: Driven1 on May 13, 2008, 03:38:16 PM
. generally, repubs are against the murdering of little unborn children.
Except when they're Iraqis.
true. but can you hardly blame them? those babies would have grown up and been muslim extremist terrorists that would have had as their only ambition the destruction of you and your family. thank God for the American Republican Party. protecting our women and children in the homeland. whooooooo!!!!!!
now...here is another Ann Coulter pic for u...
(http://www.politicalfrenzy.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/ann_coulter.jpg)
That's a really good picture of her. The only way it could be improved is to put a paper bag over her head. maybe 2 bags in case the first one breaks.....Hey, wait a minute.....what's that bulge in her dress?
Quote from: Midway on May 13, 2008, 08:09:16 PM
The only problem with recruiting Webb would be that his seat would probably be lost to a republican as a result of his vacating it.
But he is an honest straight talking individual who seems to have a pretty strong moral and ethical compass.
Yes, like James Traficant, Bill Clinton & Gary Condit.
Oh yeah?
How many Republican pols can you name who actually have a kid in combat??
He talks the talk AND walks the walk.
::) ::) ::) ::)
at least republicans believe in circumcision.
You can see that through that shiny dress?
basically, the way i see it...you have TWO choices only if Obama was to become Prez...they are both women....you pick & choose....
CHOICE 1
(http://www.politicalfrenzy.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/ann_coulter.jpg)
and CHOICE 2
(http://uglydemocrats.com/democrats/United-States/Hillary-Clinton/hillary-bill-clinton.jpg)
again...
(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1400046610.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)