HYPOTHETICAL: Election 2008

[Mike Smash!]

Imagine that the 2008 Presidential Election were held today, for whom would you vote?

Now I know that this is impossible to predict and anyone can pop out of nowhere at any time (who ever heard of Howard Dean until 2002?), but based on the current political climate and who is seriously hinting they'd run and the candidate the parties would support, just imagine that these are the candidates on your ballot:


Bill Frist - Republican

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Democrat

Peter Miguel Camejo - Green

Jesse Ventura - Independent

Michael Badnarik - Libertarian

Michael Anthony Peroutka - Constitution

[StoneGold]

Who would I vote for? Yep, you guessed it, Frank Stallone!

http://wwws.mmjbdata.com/graphics/www.mmguide.musicmatch.com/artist_image/amg/drp100/p165/p16556j26g5.jpg

[Gideon Quinn]

I refuse to vote for anyone other than John McCain.

[Guts/Batman]

Jesse Ventura for the sheer novelty of it....oops that's what got Arnold elected in Cali

Seriously however, I would probably not vote for any of them.

[Samurai]

I rather like Jessee Ventura, and was impressed the few times I've heard him speak as Gov. I don't care all that much for Frist, but it'd be between those 2. I'd want to hear more from both of them before making a final decision, but right now, probably Ventura.

[Guts/Batman]

I rather like Jessee Ventura, and was impressed the few times I've heard him speak as Gov. I don't care all that much for Frist, but it'd be between those 2. I'd want to hear more from both of them before making a final decision, but right now, probably Ventura.


I heard some bad things about his rule in Minne. from fellow students.

[Samurai]

I heard some bad things about his rule in Minne. from fellow students.
I'm in CA, so I don't have much first hand knowledge of him or how he ran the state. I've just seen a few speeches he gave... he was a strong, rousing, and surprisingly intelligent speaker IMO. If I found out more about him and his politics that I didn't care for, I'd probably go for Frist. But I'd hope the Reps find a better candidate than him...

[Mike Smash!]

Ventura would do very well as a third party candidate for President I think, especially if Hillary and Frist are the major party candidates.

Ventura is smart, honest, willing to say things that could piss people off, plain spoken, great on some issues, not so great on others, but very honest and sincere about his beliefs and I do respect the guy.

In an IRV election, he'd be my second choice on the ballot.

He had great commercials when he ran for office, too. The Action Figure one (http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http://www.northwoodsadv.com/our_work/portfolio/tv_reel.html) is my favorite.

[StoneGold]

Because you know the Republicans will change the constitution for it...

http://www.hero.com/public/schwarzenegger.jpg

[Guts/Batman]

Because you know the Republicans will change the constitution for it...


The red x didn't prevent me from knowing who you meant lol

[Mike Smash!]

Because you know the Republicans will change the constitution for it...

http://www.hero.com/public/schwarzenegger.jpgHow about a Constitutional Amendment requiring Arnold to get in shape or wear a shirt.

He's the Terminator, man. He has no excuse to look like me.

[StoneGold]

The red x didn't prevent me from knowing who you meant lol
I accidentally put the website in the img tags instead of the image. Oops. It's worth it for the real pic though. Arnie took the title of Chief Sagging Muscles away from Hogan. At least Hogan has the decency to have traded in the speedos for stretch pants.

[Guts/Batman]

I accidentally put the website in the img tags instead of the image. Oops. It's worth it for the real pic though. Arnie took the title of Chief Sagging Muscles away from Hogan. At least Hogan has the decency to have traded in the speedos for stretch pants.

Yes...too ture

[StoneGold]

Optimus Prime for president!

































Yes, Ohio national guardsman and firefighter Optimus Prime for president!

http://www.wkyc.com/assetpool/images/0331941134_optimus1.jpg

[ragnarok_2012]

Hmmm, a Schwarzenegger/Stallone ticket....

[Mike Smash!]

Oh, for your reference, here are pics of the candidates on that ballot:

http://www.mcwdn.org/GOVERNMENT/Frist250.gif

Bill Frist - Republican

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/a/a6/Hillary_Clinton_1.jpg

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Democrat

http://i.timeinc.net/TFK/election04/images/cand-profile-photo-camejo.jpg

Peter Miguel Camejo - Green

http://www.me3.org/newsletters/jvcport.jpg

Jesse Ventura - Independent

[Mike Smash!]

http://www.beirut.indymedia.org/images/2004/09/1670.png

Michael Badnarik - Libertarian

http://www.cpflorida.com/images/peroutka.jpg

Michael Anthony Peroutka - Constitution

[ragnarok_2012]

I just want to say that when I voted for Badnarik I thought I was voting for Pat Buchanan :D

[Guts/Batman]

Stallone and Schwarzenneger couldn't even make ONE movie together. I don't think they are running together...lol

[Gideon Quinn]

*nevermind*

[Mike Smash!]

Mrs. Clinton should run on a socialist ticket, since that is exactly what she is.Um, no she's not. And the only people who would say so haven't the slightest idea what socialism is aside from a slur to yell at lefties you don't like.

If anything she's a slightly left of center Centrist and sliding Rightward.

I don't like her either, but I'd rather be accurate about why she sucks. I know a handful of socialists casually and not a single one of them would vote for her.

[Guts/Batman]

Um, no she's not. And the only people who would say so haven't the slightest idea what socialism is aside from a slur to yell at lefties you don't like.

If anything she's a slightly left of center Centrist and sliding Rightward.

I don't like her either, but I'd rather be accurate about why she sucks. I know a handful of socialists casually and not a single one of them would vote for her.

What exactly has she done in her term as Senator from NY?

[Mike Smash!]

What exactly has she done in her term as Senator from NY?Well, she cast alot of "I'm voting conservative so I don't get called unpatriotic" votes for the PATRIOT Act and the war. She also refused to stand up against the voter fraud in Ohio and for the most part, doesn't stand out much against the other DLC Democrats, other than her famous name.

Oh and she looked like he worst kind of snob at the DNC Convention. While Obama was speaking, they cut to shot of her sipping champagne in the balcony and she wasn't even paying attention and talking to someone else.

[Guts/Batman]

Well, she cast alot of "I'm voting conservative so I don't get called unpatriotic" votes for the PATRIOT Act and the war. She also refused to stand up against the voter fraud in Ohio and for the most part, doesn't stand out much against the other DLC Democrats, other than her famous name.

Oh and she looked like he worst kind of snob at the DNC Convention. While Obama was speaking, they cut to shot of her sipping champagne in the balcony and she wasn't even paying attention and talking to someone else.


Sounds impressive.

Why did she even deserve a Senatorship (besides her name)? Why couldn't she go through the normal way to Senatorship (through the House of Representatives)?

[phoenixrising]

Sounds impressive.

Why did she even deserve a Senatorship (besides her name)? Why couldn't she go through the normal way to Senatorship (through the House of Representatives)?

In her defense, she did have a law degree and many years experience in government. After all, she was the brains of the Clinton machine and everyone knew it.

Not only that, but there really isn't a "normal way" to be a Senator. Lots of the didn't start as Reps. Just FYI.

My friends that live in New York have come to love her. It's kind of odd, she has an insanely high approval rating....and they used to hate her. I don't really know what she did, but I guess she did aight in their eyes.

[Patient Boy]

Optimus Prime for president!


Funny you should mention that...

[Rabid Trekkie]

Hmmm, a Schwarzenegger/Stallone ticket....

Oh I'm all for that. With Rambo as vice president no terrorist would dare attack America. And then of course the Presinator. An added bonus, they won't cut into my tv shows to show what he has to say as no one can understand him anyway.

[Typo Lad]

What exactly has she done in her term as Senator from NY?

Other than embarrass the hell out of the DNC? Not much.

Senator Clinton came under criticism in 2004 after commenting on Mahatma Gandhi during a Democratic fund-raiser, saying that Gandhi was someone "who ran a gas station down in Saint Louis". Many took Clintons' words as stereotyping South Asians living in the United States. Clinton later apologized, stating she was making "a lame attempt at humor" and "admired the work and life of Mahatma Gandhi and had spoken publicly about that many times."[1] (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/152686p-134376c.html) Michelle Naef, administrator of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence said she didn't think Clinton was trying to demean Mahatma Gandhi and credited both Clintons as long having supported the Gandhi message. However, Naef felt Hillary Clinton's remarks were offensive and could be "incredibly harmful".[2]

[Valmore]

Who would I vote for? Yep, you guessed it, Frank Stallone!

http://wwws.mmjbdata.com/graphics/www.mmguide.musicmatch.com/artist_image/amg/drp100/p165/p16556j26g5.jpg

The sad thing is... with the group Mike posted above, I'd vote for Frank Stallone, too.

[Nate C.]

Mike, there is no way that the GOP will choose Bill Frist as their candidate. you stacked the deck unfairly.

Rudi Guliani,
John McCain,
Condi Rice,
Colin Powell

are all better, more popular choices, and surely you recognize that.

Rice/Powell

Guiliani/McCain

McCain/Rice

Powell/Rice

etc. etc. would kick ass in '08.

I would love for the first black, the first woman, and both at the same time to be a Republican candidate, putting the lie to the myth of the GOP once and for all. Rice is a fine candidate for President, not Frist. Hell, Frist doesn't even know how aids is transmitted, and he's a MD.

[K'Nort]

I refuse to vote for anyone other than John McCain.

I'll vote regardless, but he's certainly my preference.

[Cei-U!]

I agree about the stacked deck. I would vote for McCain, maybe even Guiliani, before I'd vote for Hilary but if Frist is the candidate, I'll mark my ballot for her in a heartbeat. And it's stacked the other way too: who says HRC will be the nominee? I still hold out (admittedly dimming) hope Dean will shake up the DNC and try running an honest-to-God liberal for a change.

Cei-U!
I summon the ace-in-the-hole!

[Nate C.]

Clinton/Dean '08?

[phoenixrising]

There's no way Condi Rice or Colin Powell are getting anywhere near the Oval Office....not as Republicans. For one, they both told Tim Russert they wouldn't (and by god, you don't lie to Timmy)....but more importantly, they are both pro-choice.

[Nitmo]

Jesse Ventura for the sheer novelty of it....oops that's what got Arnold elected in Cali

Seriously however, I would probably not vote for any of them.

Last I checked, Arnold was turning California around

-----
And I'd like to vote for Badanarik or Peroutka, but I listened to their viewpoints a lot during the Bush/Kerry election hoohah and didn't really agree too much with either of them, especially Peroutka (who has some seriously dangerous ideas).

[Mike Smash!]

Oh I'm all for that. With Rambo as vice president no terrorist would dare attack America. And then of course the Presinator. An added bonus, they won't cut into my tv shows to show what he has to say as no one can understand him anyway.He did fight alongside the mujhadeen and Osama bin Laden in Rambo III. That might hurt his chances. :)

[Nate C.]

There's no way Condi Rice or Colin Powell are getting anywhere near the Oval Office....not as Republicans. For one, they both told Tim Russert they wouldn't (and by god, you don't lie to Timmy)....but more importantly, they are both pro-choice.

That's just not true, and one of the things I've learned in politics is not to let my (political) enemies determine my course. The GOP loves Condi and Powell, and it shouldn't matter what the DEMS think.

Condi and Powell both said what every politician everywhere in all time has said. No (meaning maybe or yes).

As for the pro-choice. So what? Roe v/ Wade isn't getting repealed anytime soon. The only questions are how far do they support choice (as in, say, late term abortions).

McCain's pro-choice, too.

Republicans, as a whole, aren't near as lock-step or as Right, as painted.

[Mike Smash!]

Last I checked, Arnold was turning California around

-----
And I'd like to vote for Badanarik or Peroutka, but I listened to their viewpoints a lot during the Bush/Kerry election hoohah and didn't really agree too much with either of them, especially Peroutka (who has some seriously dangerous ideas).Peroutka is an odd one.

He comes across like a guy you could have a beer with, even knowing that he's a right-wing fundamentalist who thinks that only Christians should get federal judicial spots, wants to eliminate the minimum wage, erode the separation of church and state and make even abortion in cases of rape and incest illegal.

The weird thing is even on the issues I agree with him on like the war and the PATRIOT Act, he somehow makes those answers scary too. And even weirder, I still think he comes across as a really nice guy that you could hang out with if you never brought up religion or abortion.

Which I guess should make him scarier.

[Mike Smash!]

That's just not true, and one of the things I've learned in politics is not to let my (political) enemies determine my course. The GOP loves Condi and Powell, and it shouldn't matter what the DEMS think.

Condi and Powell both said what every politician everywhere in all time has said. No (meaning maybe or yes).

As for the pro-choice. So what? Roe v/ Wade isn't getting repealed anytime soon. The only questions are how far do they support choice (as in, say, late term abortions).

McCain's pro-choice, too.

Republicans, as a whole, aren't near as lock-step or as Right, as painted.Colin Powell probably would have won had he run in 1996, but his attachment to the current administration would scare off a lot of the moderates and even some of the Democrats who would have voted for him then.

And now, I don't think he wants to go into the White House again, for any President. I really get the feeling he's washed his hands of the whole thing and politics.

Condi, however, doesn't have much to show aside from being caught in several lies by the 9/11 commission, including that memo that wasn't really that important: "bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S." And for every vote she'd get for being a black female candidate, she'd lose another for her Republican base for the same reason.

[Nate C.]

Imagine that the 2008 Presidential Election were held today, for whom would you vote?

Now I know that this is impossible to predict and anyone can pop out of nowhere at any time (who ever heard of Howard Dean until 2002?), but based on the current political climate and who is seriously hinting they'd run and the candidate the parties would support, just imagine that these are the candidates on your ballot:

Bill Frist - Republican

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Democrat

Peter Miguel Camejo - Green

Jesse Ventura - Independent

Michael Badnarik - Libertarian

Michael Anthony Peroutka - Constitution

You asked us to vote based on 3 criteria:

1. current political climate.
2. seriously hinting they would run.
3. the candidate their parties would support.


And then you gave the GOP Frist. That's a stacked deck. He sucks in the current political climate, he's hinting because he's fishing, and the party wouldn't support him, seeing as how the four I mentioned poll better, are better known, have a better chance of winning and are more marketable to the middle.

The only thing that Condi and Powell haven't done, which Pho correctly points out, is hint that they would accept. But don't think for one moment that they aren't loved, admired, supported, or wouldn't accept the parties nomination if seriously offered.

[Mike Smash!]

Mike, there is no way that the GOP will choose Bill Frist as their candidate. you stacked the deck unfairly.

Rudi Guliani,
John McCain,
Condi Rice,
Colin Powell

are all better, more popular choices, and surely you recognize that.

Rice/Powell

Guiliani/McCain

McCain/Rice

Powell/Rice

etc. etc. would kick ass in '08.

I would love for the first black, the first woman, and both at the same time to be a Republican candidate, putting the lie to the myth of the GOP once and for all. Rice is a fine candidate for President, not Frist. Hell, Frist doesn't even know how aids is transmitted, and he's a MD.Yeah, sweat and tears. That's so pathetic.

But he's more popular with Republican leadership than McCain is. And Powell won't want the nomination or run and Condi won't come within a mile of it. As for Guiliani and McCain, the GOP still says that evenagelical conservative Christian turned the tide in that election, so that's who they've been catering to with Terri Schiavo, going after the judicial filibuster for those judges..etc.

On the current track, I can't see them nominating a pro-choice candidate like McCain or Guiliani. They don't want moderates right now. They want a religious right candidate to hold on to those evangelical Bush '04 voters and keep them voting. Frist is really, the perfect candidate for them. He's even willing to lie about the way AIDS is transmuted or about Terri Schiavo's condition (he's not a neurologist) for political gain and he's the one in the primaries that the Dobsons and Robertsons will flock to.

Now between now and 2008, there may be a point where you average Republican gets sick of the religious right when they go to far and push a moderate candidate. Really the only one who's got a shot on that is McCain, but based on what the Bush campaign and the RNC leadership did to him in the primaries last time around, they still don't want him. They hate a maverick as much as the DNC did with Dean.

And like I said, I based these people off of the likely people the party would back now. Remember that Dean was the most popular Dem in the race, but he lost to Kerry who wasn't even half as popular because the party specifically targetted Dean and worked to make him look unelectable. The RNC will do no less with McCain in 2008 if he runs.

I may be dead wrong, but right now it's my best guess.

[Mike Smash!]

I agree about the stacked deck. I would vote for McCain, maybe even Guiliani, before I'd vote for Hilary but if Frist is the candidate, I'll mark my ballot for her in a heartbeat. And it's stacked the other way too: who says HRC will be the nominee? I still hold out (admittedly dimming) hope Dean will shake up the DNC and try running an honest-to-God liberal for a change.

Cei-U!
I summon the ace-in-the-hole!Dean already said he wasn't going to run if he won the DNC Chairmanship.

[Nate C.]

And for every vote she'd get for being a black female candidate, she'd lose another for her Republican base for the same reason.

Avoiding your commentary on Powell (I agree) and ignoring your biased assertions about Rice, this last part sticks in my craw, and is one of the problems I have with your political assertions. If you wanna bring down the 2 party system, go for it, but outright lies and slander will win you no supporters. You basically just stated that the GOP won't vote for her because they are racist and bigoted, as far from the truth as is possible, or did Bush lose votes for having Powell and Rice in his cabinet?

Your partisanship is showing.

[Mike Smash!]

Avoiding your commentary on Powell (I agree) and ignoring your biased assertions about Rice, this last part sticks in my craw, and is one of the problems I have with your political assertions. If you wanna bring down the 2 party system, go for it, but outright lies and slander will win you no supporters. You basically just stated that the GOP won't vote for her because they are racist and bigoted, as far from the truth as is possible, or did Bush lose votes for having Powell and Rice in his cabinet?

Your partisanship is showing.Listen, I am in no way saying that Republicans are all racist. In no way.

But alot of them are, you have to admit. Alot of voters followed people like Strom Thurmond to the Republican Party, and while the party doesn't really represent them as overtly racist, they still vote for it.

And it's not slander, it's fact. There are a lot of conservative voters out there who are very racist people. If Condi were to get the Republican nomination for President, she'd probably get a lot of non-voters to vote for her just by being a black woman, but that would also lose her the votes of a lot of racists who normally vote Republican.

I'd say enough to throw off the numbers of people she'd win over.

I've thrown plenty of attacks at the Republican Party and this isn't one of them. There are plenty of racist people in this country and they tend to be conservative in a reactionary way. They certainly wouldn't vote for a Democrat, because that party tries to snuggle up to minorities on camera as much as possible. That leaves them either with voting for Republicans or likely, not at all.

[macul]

Dean already said he wasn't going to run if he won the DNC Chairmanship.

Would Dean stand a chance keeping in mind his recent comments about the GOP being nothing but white Christians and Republicans never having worked a day in their lives? Do comments like that actually appeal to anyone or is this guy just way out of whack, but doesn't realize it?

[Nate C.]

Listen, I am in no way saying that Republicans are all racist. In no way.

But alot of them are, you have to admit

I don't have to admit this. I don't think it's true. Blacks account for 12% of the nation, but 42% of the state of Mississippi. I am telling you, as an Evangelical Conservative who typically votes GOP, and lives in the heart of the South that your annectdotal assertion is unsupportable and wrong. I work, worship, and live with many blacks, every single day of my life. And "lots" of conservatives do too, and vote GOP.

And it's not slander, it's fact. There are a lot of conservative voters out there who are very racist people.

Show me numbers that "a lot" of conservative voters "are very racist".

If Condi were to get the Republican nomination for President, she'd probably get a lot of non-voters to vote for her just by being a black woman, but that would also lose her the votes of a lot of racists who normally vote Republican.

Mike, I invite you to spend one week with me down here. I'll buy you a beer, and escort you around. I have assurances from all my Klan buddies that you'll be ok.

I'd say enough to throw off the numbers of people she'd win over.

I've thrown plenty of attacks at the Republican Party and this isn't one of them. There are plenty of racist people in this country and they tend to be conservative in a reactionary way. They certainly wouldn't vote for a Democrat, because that party tries to snuggle up to minorities on camera as much as possible. That leaves them either with voting for Republicans or likely, not at all.


I'm not trying to go three rounds here, Mike, but your assertions aren't helping.

[macul]

I find this curious. Republicans and conservatives getting labeled with this racist label, yet it is the Republican party, and not the supposed tolerant Democratic party, that has had serious talk about nominating two blacks for president in 2008. Why would they even begin to think about nominating a black if it was a foregone conclusion that person would never win?

[phoenixrising]

That's just not true, and one of the things I've learned in politics is not to let my (political) enemies determine my course. The GOP loves Condi and Powell, and it shouldn't matter what the DEMS think.


I'm very confused by this statement. I love Coilin Powell....and I don't consider myself a democrat. But that may not be what you're saying. I'm speaking from the standpoint of a political scientist/media observer.


Condi and Powell both said what every politician everywhere in all time has said. No (meaning maybe or yes).


Condi, at least, was very insistently a no. And for good reason.


As for the pro-choice. So what? Roe v/ Wade isn't getting repealed anytime soon. The only questions are how far do they support choice (as in, say, late term abortions).

McCain's pro-choice, too.

Republicans, as a whole, aren't near as lock-step or as Right, as painted.

It isn't paint, my friend. The GOP intentionally dressed the party up that way to win votes. People like Mccain were hidden in the back as much as they could to get a bunch of religious conservatives out in the public eye over the last five years. Don't sit back and blame the media on this one. Blame DeLay/Frist/Rove, who each will happily go on TV and tell the world how lockstep Right the party is.

The GOP machine that is keeping the party winning is the Far Right...and I don't believe they'd go for a pro-choice candidate. But...they might for McCain, only because of his experience and his proven electability. But a lot will have to change in the party's outlook before they'll consider nominating a moderate of any kind.

As much as they love touting Rice and Powell around, they are nothing more than poster kids right now. And I think they both know it. (not only that, but how in the world is Condi Rice qualified to be president? she's never held elected office as far as I recall)

[phoenixrising]

I find this curious. Republicans and conservatives getting labeled with this racist label, yet it is the Republican party, and not the supposed tolerant Democratic party, that has had serious talk about nominating two blacks for president in 2008. Why would they even begin to think about nominating a black if it was a foregone conclusion that person would never win?

Macul, there is no serious talk about nominating either of them from anyone except the media. The party itself has its bets hedged Right....for now. Frist is practically walking around with a "for your considration" sign flashing over his head all day. For now.

[phoenixrising]

Show me numbers that "a lot" of conservative voters "are very racist".

Mike, I invite you to spend one week with me down here. I'll buy you a beer, and escort you around. I have assurances from all my Klan buddies that you'll be ok.

First of all, there won't be numbers on that becaus eno one thinks they are racist, nor would they admit it i some sor tof poll. That's a pretty lame defense.

His assertion is anecdotal, I'm guessing, and so is my own. Maybe the South isn't as racist as it is painted to be, but the Midwest is far more racist than it lets on.

[macul]

Macul, there is no serious talk about nominating either of them from anyone except the media. The party itself has its bets hedged Right....for now. Frist is practically walking around with a "for your considration" sign flashing over his head all day. For now.

However, I have heard from many Republicans (even whites! how shocking!) who would vote for either of them in a heartbeat. My point was that it is the supposedly racist Republican party, and not the supposedly completely tolerant Democratic party, that has some blacks being considered/talked about. Maybe they ultimately won't end up with the nomination. I dunno. I just find the situation curious.

As for the poll, I don't know if I could vote for any of the above. I would probably do another write in vote.

[macul]

Listen, I am in no way saying that Republicans are all racist. In no way.

But alot of them are, you have to admit.

And so are a lot of Democrats, you have to admit. Is this supposed to make me vote Democrat or Green?

[Nate C.]

I'm very confused by this statement. I love Coilin Powell....and I don't consider myself a democrat. But that may not be what you're saying. I'm speaking from the standpoint of a political scientist/media observer.

I guess I was just trying to find a way to say the GOP will pick it's own candidate, and not let others choose for them. Poorly. :)


It isn't paint, my friend. The GOP intentionally dressed the party up that way to win votes. People like Mccain were hidden in the back as much as they could to get a bunch of religious conservatives out in the public eye over the last five years.

I disagree with that. I distinctly remember McCain and Guiliani stumping for Bush and getting face time. Heck, McCain's got a made for tv movie about his Nam imprissonment out right now. McCain's not the red headed step-child, he's just a free-thinker.

Don't sit back and blame the media on this one. Blame DeLay/Frist/Rove, who each will happily go on TV and tell the world how lockstep Right the party is.

not blaming the media, Pho.

The GOP machine that is keeping the party winning is the Far Right...and I don't believe they'd go for a pro-choice candidate. But...they might for McCain, only because of his experience and his proven electability. But a lot will have to change in the party's outlook before they'll consider nominating a moderate of any kind.

maybe.


As much as they love touting Rice and Powell around, they are nothing more than poster kids right now.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Rice is Bush's right arm, and Powell has brought much to the table.

Anyway, I hate political debates. Just don't give me Frist as the GOP choice for '08.

[Nate C.]

First of all, there won't be numbers on that becaus eno one thinks they are racist, nor would they admit it i some sor tof poll. That's a pretty lame defense.
His assertion is anecdotal, I'm guessing, and so is my own. Maybe the South isn't as racist as it is painted to be, but the Midwest is far more racist than it lets on.

Listen, I am in no way saying that Republicans are all racist. In no way.

But alot of them are, you have to admit. Alot of voters followed people like Strom Thurmond to the Republican Party, and while the party doesn't really represent them as overtly racist, they still vote for it.

And it's not slander, it's fact.


Mike's the one who called it a "fact", not me, Pho.

It's not my challenge to him that's lame, but his assertion that anectodatal and spurious evidence (if that is what he was doing) is accurate and factual.

And again, I'm not looking for a fight, just trying to be fair and balanced. :D

[MKTerra]

For those who wanna vote for McCain, I guess you could write him in...

[Rabid Trekkie]

Forgive my political ignorance (I don't get into political mode until voting time) but who is Frist and why do people not like him?

Oh and a McCain/Giulliani presidency would be fantastic. On the View yesterday Sean Hannity seemed to even like the idea.

[Wesley Dodds]

My point was that it is the supposedly racist Republican party, and not the supposedly completely tolerant Democratic party, that has some blacks being considered/talked about.


OK. What about Barack Obama? Democrats have talked about a Presidential run for Obama ever since his great speech at their convention last year. So, "both the supposedly racist Republican party and the supposedly completely tolerant Democratic party have some blacks being considered/talked about."

And Mike was exactly right. The Dixiecrats became Republicans after the Civil Rights Act -- people like Strom Thurmond switched parties. The Republicans did embark on a Southern Strategy of using fear of the black man to win votes. The strategy reached apotheosis with Willie Horton in 1988 but the LA Riots made that kind of tactic impossible in 1992. And then NAFTA, the final coffin nail for the Democrats in the South. The Solid South gave way to the Republican Revolution of 1994. As recently as 2000 the Confederate Flag was a big issue and George Bush kicked off his electoral campaign at a college where inter-racial dating was forbidden.

But it's not as bad as it once was. Republicans don't complain about black people the way they once did. If you check out the listservs for the far right you'll see they're much more likely to be complaining about plots to ban the bible than uppity blacks.

Nope -- gay is the new black. :p

[Phrozen]

If those are my choices I am writing in Jean Jacques Rousseau.

[Tages]

I wouldn't. Hah.

Assuming I did, here would be my order of preference:


1. Badnarik
2. Peroutka
3. Camejo
4. Ventura
5. Bill Frist
6. Hilary Rodham Clinton

[Typo Lad]

I honestly have no idea, save that in a choice between the Carpetbagger and almost any Republican will make me go third party.

[Tages]

I honestly have no idea, save that in a choice between the Carpetbagger and almost any Republican will make me go third party.
Join uuuuuusssssssssss...............

[Nate C.]

[QUOTE]OK. What about Barack Obama? Democrats have talked about a Presidential run for Obama ever since his great speech at their convention last year.

Yup. Back in the good old days of just 5 and 1/2 months ago. Good old track record, that one has.

So, "both the supposedly racist Republican party and the supposedly completely tolerant Democratic party have some blacks being considered/talked about."


Except we have Alan Keyes, Powell, Rice, and JC Watts. I'll put them up against Obama (whom I admire, what little I know), Jesse Jackson and Charlie Rangle any day of the week.

And Mike was exactly right.

Mike didn't make all these assertions. You did. Right now. Right below this sentence.

The Dixiecrats became Republicans after the Civil Rights Act -- people like Strom Thurmond switched parties. The Republicans did embark on a Southern Strategy of using fear of the black man to win votes.

Partially true.

The strategy reached apotheosis with Willie Horton in 1988 but the LA Riots made that kind of tactic impossible in 1992.

Is this strategy written down and accessable?

And then NAFTA, the final coffin nail for the Democrats in the South. The Solid South gave way to the Republican Revolution of 1994.

I'm not doing the NAFTA debate again, (there's lots of blame to pass around) but the GOP revolution was underway long before 1994.


As recently as 2000 the Confederate Flag was a big issue

Nope. Guess who voted against it? Lil' ol Nate. And a bunch more whiteys too. It failed in Mississippi, but there are multiple reasons for that, racism being a minor one.

and George Bush kicked off his electoral campaign at a college where inter-racial dating was forbidden.

We could do this all day. Must we review Gore and Clinton's mis-steps? Chinese in the Lincoln bedroom, etc. etc.?


But it's not as bad as it once was. Republicans don't complain about black people the way they once did. If you check out the listservs for the far right you'll see they're much more likely to be complaining about plots to ban the bible than uppity blacks.

Nope -- gay is the new black. :p

Wait. The bible is gay?

[Lex]

I'm to the point where I don't care who is going to be running for the two major parties and am only interested in "3rd party" candidates. If I ever do sign up for a party (I'm currently independant), it will probably be with either the Greens or the Libertarians. Libertarians are kinda stronger here in South Dakota, but I prefer the Green's stances on a couple issues.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Nate,

I don't think it's debatable but that the Republican Party, for all of Bush's rhetoric regarding reaching out to the minority communities, has played the "Southern Strategy" in order to win elections. In his 1964 presidential bid, Barry Goldwater ran "Operation Dixie," which courted southern whites and ceded the black vote entirely. Goldwater lost badly, but four years later, the approach worked. Republican Richard Nixon won election in 1968 on a "Southern Strategy" that stressed "law and order" and tapped into white anxieties about black violence.

Nixon's plan furnished the blueprint for the campaigns of Ronald Reagan and the elder George Bush, both of whom wrote off the black vote and pursued white voters with coded racial appeals. In 1988, Bush tarred Democrat Michael Dukakis as soft on crime, famously using ads that featured a menacing black rapist named Willie Horton.

George W. Bush, despite his message of inclusion, employed the very same Southern Strategy in 2000 and 2004. In 2000, Bush received the lowest percentage of the African American vote for any Republican since Goldwater.

As you know, in the South, the Civil War is popularly known as the "War for States' Rights," although the specific right in question was the right to own slaves. It was under the banner of the States' Rights Party that Senator Strom Thurmond launched his 1948 bid for president on a platform of the "segregation of the races and the integrity of each race" -- the campaign that Senator Lott praised. The term has always stood for racial intolerance.

There are a variety of other coded terms popular with Republicans, some of them references to Civil War battles and leaders or to Confederate president Jefferson Davis (a favorite reference of Mr. Lott's), others to Southern images of menacing blacks. Reagan used the term "welfare queens." In Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, queen is a racial term, referring to a certain type of promiscuous black woman.

In recent years, the strategy has been more subtle. When Bush prepared to make his presidential acceptance speech in Austin, Tex., in 2000, his podium was carefully placed beside a large and visible monument to soldiers who had fought in the war for states' rights, featuring a plaque lamenting the loss. He had also paid a symbolically important visit to Bob Jones University, where inter-racial dating was banned. Mr. Lott has been less subtle, repeatedly saying over the years that the country would have been a better place if Mr. Thurmond had won, and dropping references to the merits of the Confederate era into speeches.

Now, I will grant you that Bush has had a more diverse cabinet than any other Republican President. But, of the examples you cited, J.C. Watts is no longer in office and neither is Gen. Powell. And Alan Keyes? I think his little choo-choo went around the bend several years ago. He hasn't been a serious figure in Republican politics for some time.

That's not to say that "all Republicans are racists." Far from it. I am friends with many Republicans and none of them are racist in the least. But, at the same time, it's beyond question but that the national GOP has pursued a political strategy of appealing to middle and lower class southern whites' prejudices and fears.

Be that as it may, I think you are also discounting the influence of the religious rightwing on your party. The religious right's organization and money makes it far more influential on the GOP than their numbers might suggest. Indeed, Rove's 2004 strategy, beginning with the attack on gay marriage, was conceived as a way to mobilize evangelical voters. Thus, Bush did not have to "move to the center," as Clinton did, but was able to pursue a religious, conservative agenda because of his support from evangelical Christians.

For the future, I suspect this will make it far more difficult for a moderate to run for the GOP Presidential nomination. McCain and Guliani both have their respective problems with the religious right. McCain, for one, has never forgiven them for South Carolina during the 2000 primary campaign. Guliani, on the other hand, is pro-choice. Frist has been doing his level best to maintain good relations with the religious right and the fight over judicial nominations is a primary example. McCain will continue to do well with New Hampshire Republicans, but his deal on the filibuster has effectively killed any hope he has of gaining the nomination in 2008, IMHO.

[Tages]

As you know, in the South, the Civil War is popularly known as the "War for States' Rights," although the specific right in question was the right to own slaves.
Don't start.

I mean it.

[Guts/Batman]

but the Midwest is far more racist than it lets on.


I do agree with this statement

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Don't start.

I mean it.

I'm not starting anything. I'm only making a point about the well-known "southern strategy" employed by the GOP in presidential elections. I have no desire to engage in that debate again.

Because, I was, after all, right. :D

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

I do agree with this statement

Absolutely. There was a study done several years ago that revealed Milwaukee to be one of the most segregated cities in America. And, having gone to high school there, I'd have to agree.

[Mike Smash!]

Nate,

I want you to step back a bit because emotions are running high. If I believed in God, I'd say that my Comcast connection cut out at a very good time, because I don't want to fight you over this.

Largely because I think you're proceding from the assumption of things that I did not say.

I never once said that all Republicans were racists.

I never once said that all Southerners were racists.

And simply because you are both, does not mean that I am including you in my remarks. My remarks -- like the ones I made a month ago about the rabid religious right, of which you are also not a part -- had a very specific target.

You are proceding as if that target is much larger, broader and blunter than it really is.

Racism is alive and well in the United States, I am sad to say. There are racists in every political party inevitably. I'm sure we have even a couple in the Greens, though they'd likely be heavily closeted. There are a small pocket of racist Democrats who didn't leave the Democrats after the Civil Rights Act was signed and have been taught never to vote for a Republican from birth, likely because of Lincoln and the Civil War. I imagine Fred Phelps is such a person.

Before 1964, the Democratic Party was a haven of racists and bigots, many of which left after the Civil Rights Act was signed and became the Dixiecrat Party (State's Rights Democratic Party) for a Presidential election, before going over to the Republican Party.

Some even remained Democrats, like George Wallace who also ran with the American Independent Party for President in 1968 and again as a Democrat in 1972.

But by and large these racist voters went by and large to the Republican Party, which has more talk of "state's rights" (which in past decades was code for segregation rights with people like Strom Thurmond and George Wallace), their stricter stances on immigration, if not the handful of them whose rhetoric is very xenophobic like Pat Buchanan's who ran twice for the Republican nomination for President on such a platfrom that talked about "protecting American culture". You also see twinges of racism in things said by Rush Limbaugh who once told an African American caller in the 70s to "take the bone out of your nose and call me back", to Ann Coulter making remarks about how Arabs "smell" or calling Helen Thomas "that old Arab" to Michael Savage saying that racism is good because it helps us kill our enemies in wars and calls for the U.S. military to round up undocumented workers in L.A. and build a wall around the city. Not to mention Bob Jones University's longstanding policy against interracial dating.

Now, are those figures representative of the Republicans and conservatives that I know? Representative of the Republicans and conservatives that I've worked with on issue activism like electoral reform?

By and large, absolutely not. But with the help of those public figures and by their words and at-times racists rhetoric, encourage those voters to vote Republican.

But I never even mentioned the South in my argument, Nate. That was all you. I never once said that all Republicans are racist or that the RNC is an overtly racist party.

What I did say is that of all of the parties out there aside from the truly fringe Nazi-esque third parties that are largely dead, most American racist will go to the Republican Party over the Democrats or others.

I want you to step back and realize that I am not painting this with as wide of a brush as you think I am and that this argument is coming out of a misunderstanding.

I am friends and coworkers with conservatives. One of my best friends is a centrist conservative who I would trust to watch my back over just about anyone in the world. He's a helluva, loyal, smart, decent and he sticks up for his friends. If someone were to call me a "commie" or a "traitor" in his presense, I have no doubt I'd have to stop my friend from punching them in the face. He's practically a brother to me and he's not a racist in any way, means or form. He's probably one of the most open, decent people I know and I envy his ability to just start up conversations with complete strangers and be their friend within minutes.

So please, I may be a partisan, but I don't see "good" and "bad" along partisan lines. I had a wonderful conversation with the chair of the American Heritage Party on the phone about election reform and there are Greens in my state party that I can't be in the same room with.

I know you're a good guy, Nate. People say nothing but good things about you, but I think you're being too sensitive and reading things into what I'm saying that isn't actually there.

So please, step back from the "Klan" remarks. Some of the coolest people I've ever worked with, including many Greens and activists and coworkers and neighbors of mine are from the South and they are among the warmest people I know, which is sort of nice, because the Northwest is full of some of the most passive aggressive people I know.

I am and have always made remarks like this with a very tight aim. I am in no way aiming the spectrum at you, Southerners, or all Republicans.

[Mike Smash!]

And so are a lot of Democrats, you have to admit. Is this supposed to make me vote Democrat or Green?Yes, alot are. But My assertion was not that Republican had a monopoly on racist voters, but certainly an overwhelming majority of them vote Republican.

[macul]

Yes, alot are. But My assertion was not that Republican had a monopoly on racist voters, but certainly an overwhelming majority of them vote Republican.

And as you were asked previously, you can of course provide evidence for this, right?

I don't see "good" and "bad" along partisan lines.

If that were true you wouldn't even be pursuing this line of thought. Claiming that most racists are part of the Republican party is indeed looking at things through a partisan lens.

[Mike Smash!]

Would Dean stand a chance keeping in mind his recent comments about the GOP being nothing but white Christians and Republicans never having worked a day in their lives? Do comments like that actually appeal to anyone or is this guy just way out of whack, but doesn't realize it?I don't see what Dean says any less inflamatory than what I hear alot of Republican officials say about the Democrats, but that's not the point.

Dean as DNC Chair isn't the same politician as Dean as Presidential candidate. As far as electability goes, a lot of Democrats and liberals and independents still like him. But they're not overly fond of the Democratic or Republican Parties as entities, so they might like what Dean has to say, but think him a hypocrite because he's saying from the vantage point of being not just a Democrat, but the chair of their party.

To be honest, The real reason I created this and an open poll wasn't about either Democrats, Republicans or even Greens. I was curious about how well third parties especially Jesse Ventura would do in a race with the Democrat and Republican that I thought would be the most polarizing. Where the fear for voting "lesser evil" would be very high on both sides.

I also wanted to see how many well-known CBR liberals and conservatives would vote for Ventura, because I think he'd do very well in this race.

I mean, Samurai and Pho both voted for him. In an IRV race, he'd be my second choice.

Oh, and my IRV ballot for this:

Camejo
Ventura
Badnarik
Clinton
Peroutka
First

[Tages]

And as you were asked previously, you can of course provide evidence for this, right?
Mostly irrelevant fact: check Fred Phelps's web site for where he raves that GWB is "taking over Iraq with his Fag Army."

[Mike Smash!]

And as you were asked previously, you can of course provide evidence for this, right? There is no proof one can give for this, not accurately anyways.

But the rhetoric on the far Right, like with Coulter and so on...which dip into racism once in a while, overwhelmingly call for their supporters to vote Republican.

And I've yet to see a Left of center candidate call for the same sort of xenophobic jargon that people like Pat Buchanan has in the past when he ran for the Republican nomination for President.

If that were true you wouldn't even be pursuing this line of thought. Claiming that most racists are part of the Republican party is indeed looking at things through a partisan lens.No, it's a statement of experience. I haven't seen even a fraction of racists I've encountered in public or at work calling for Democrats to get elected.

The former, however, I've encountered more than once in person, and more than a few times in print or on the radio.

Are they a minority in the Republican Party? Certainly. But you'd have to be blind to see that the less moderate Republican candidates aren't afraid to tap them very subtlely every once in a while.

[Shellhead]

Maybe the South isn't as racist as it is painted to be, but the Midwest is far more racist than it lets on.

I'm sure that the Ku Klux Klan still has more members in the South than any other region, but otherwise I think that there has been real progress there in race relations since the Civil War.

The Midwest is more racist than it lets on... people here can be racist, but they are less open about it. When I first moved to Minnesota, I was startled at how white it is here, but people seemed very polite.

During the first year that I lived here, I was puzzled by the occasional careful reference to "those people from Chicago." It was always said in a hushed tone of voice, in a mixture of fear and disapproval. Finally, I realized that it was shorthand for "those black people who probably moved here from Chicago because Minnesota is more generous with welfare benefits." It's better than the n-word, but still racist.

Speaking of Minnesota, I voted for Jesse Ventura for Governor, and I didn't regret it. He is a very intelligent guy who errs on the side of speaking his mind openly instead of carefully couching his remarks in vague but politically safe phrasing. He's basically moderate, fiscally conservative and socially liberal like me, but with a solid foundation of common sense. He made mistakes from time to time, and showed a lapse in judgment on whether or not to continue his side job as a celebrity entertainer.

Ventura wasn't perfect, and there is a cautionary tale here for those who would elect a third-party candidate. Yeah, I'm looking at you, Mike Smash. Ventura was elected as an independent governor in a state with a bi-cameral legislature, where the Democrats controlled one house and the Republicans controlled the other. Ventura had trouble getting anything that he wanted, because he couldn't rally support from either party and didn't have any partisans of his own to advance his agenda.

Ultimately, Ventura was a bit of a disappointment. He ran on three main issues, cutting taxes, improving schools, and I can't remember off-hand what the third thing was. After three consecutive years of special sales tax rebates... basically free checks in the few hundred dollar range, the economy went a little south with the stock market dive in 2000, leaving the state budget underfunded and schools even more unfunded, plus that third issue not in good shape, whatever it was.

Stupidly, we then elected a new governor with a no-tax fetish who is currently in hot water for breaking his read-my-lips vow. Ventura didn't even run for a second term because he became absolutely paranoid about media coverage, almost as bad as Ross Perot when he dropped out of the race for a few critical weeks in 1996. That paranoia of Ventura's hasn't gotten better as far as I know, so he is even less likely to run than Condi Rice.

[Shellhead]

Mostly irrelevant fact: check Fred Phelps's web site for where he raves that GWB is "taking over Iraq with his Fag Army."

That's good stuff, reminds me of my favorite National Enquirer headline from years ago, "J.F.K.'s dog was an alien!"

[Guts/Batman]

That's good stuff, reminds me of my favorite National Enquirer headline from years ago, "J.F.K.'s dog was an alien!"


My fav is: "Hunter shoots angel"

[Tages]

And I've yet to see a Left of center candidate call for the same sort of xenophobic jargon that people like Pat Buchanan has in the past when he ran for the Republican nomination for President.
Something I wrote to Doc Kramer earlier today, on the Books board:

"Honestly, if everything people said about Pat Buchanan on CBR were true, the guy would be foaming the blood of the black Jewish homosexual babies he ate for lunch at the mouth into the shape of a swastika while his glowing red eyes zapped a cross on the ACLU's lawn, igniting it with his Evilvision, and that would be a regular Saturday afternoon for ol' Pat."

I wouldn't consider Buchanan any more xenophobic than most of the people calling for immigration controls, anyway (BTW: most of the polls I've seen say Americans as a whole want immigration to be more restricted than it is now).

[macul]

There is no proof one can give for this, not accurately anyways.

But the rhetoric on the far Right, like with Coulter and so on...which dip into racism once in a while, overwhelmingly call for their supporters to vote Republican.

I've heard many Democrats spout of racist comments. Are we going to play a game of one up-manship? Is that all this is about? Loud mouth idiots you hear on the radio? If you think Coulter is representative of the average Republican then I'd say that is a lack of perspective on your part. Do you want we should take the looniest Green we can find and use that person as an example for what you believe?


No, it's a statement of experience. I haven't seen even a fraction of racists I've encountered in public or at work calling for Democrats to get elected.


Or maybe you have, but just didn't realize it. I'm sure it is easier to tune them out or make excuses for their behavior when they are on "your team." Dean's comments, for example. The GOP is nothing but white Christians? What about the black republicans? The athiest republicans? Dean makes his comments in an attempt to make being a white Christian Republican a bad thing.

What do you hope to gain by doing this, mike? My dad is a white Republican. He's currently married to a Vietnamese woman and is probably the only non-racist member of his family from his generation. What do you think you would gain by telling him most racists are Republicans? I truly don't know what you think you are gaining by making comments like that, but I can tell you they won't be positively reciprocated.

[Nate C.]

Scott,

You realise that you are making me talk politics, don't you? My only point on this thread was that as an Evangelical Conservative who typically votes Republican, I think Powell, Rice, McCain and Guiliani are all better choices than Frist. Cei-U, a plumb line of reasonableness agreed with my assesment. I was only calling Mike out (good naturedly, in fact) on how I thought he "stacked the deck". Later, I thought Mike made a few bone headed, biased comments about Republicans and Evangelicals being racists, and again, I called him out on it. That has been the full extent of my involvement. Oh, and I think Wesley's comments were at the least, slanted. So here we are. You got me. I will respond, but know this- I am fully aware of the frailties of the GOP. I'm not a slathering pundit; you know that. Secondly, I don't expect you and I to interpret the same events in the same ways, what with apriori beliefs, worldviews and personal bias' coming into play, so while I may agree that an event occured, I may/may not agree as to intent (Barrister). Ready?

[QUOTE=Dr. Hfuhruhurr]Nate,

I don't think it's debatable but that the Republican Party, for all of Bush's rhetoric regarding reaching out to the minority communities, has played the "Southern Strategy" in order to win elections.

With you so far. The old paradigm was "You can't win the White House without Ohio." I think the new one is "...without Ohio and the South".

In his 1964 presidential bid, Barry Goldwater ran "Operation Dixie," which courted southern whites and ceded the black vote entirely. Goldwater lost badly, but four years later, the approach worked. Republican Richard Nixon won election in 1968 on a "Southern Strategy" that stressed "law and order" and tapped into white anxieties about black violence.

Haven't left me yet. And I need to dig out my history books, but I see some/most of what you are saying.

Nixon's plan furnished the blueprint for the campaigns of Ronald Reagan and the elder George Bush, both of whom wrote off the black vote and pursued white voters with coded racial appeals. In 1988, Bush tarred Democrat Michael Dukakis as soft on crime, famously using ads that featured a menacing black rapist named Willie Horton.

We part ways. First of all, this is rhetoric, not party policy, or if it is, please show it to me. Please. Otherwise, I am forced to say bollocks. Race, politics, religion, geography, power structure all play a role in why political parties do what they do, why people vote the way they do, and its ludicrous to think the GOP just decided they didn't need the black vote. When has a politician ever stated they didn't need any votes? In fact, the reality is that black church leaders, because of, and coming out of, the civil rights movements of the sixties, and the posturing of the DMC to get their votes had more to do with the black voting block of the last 3 decades than any conspiritorial GOP model for diminishing black power.

And as for the Willie Horton ads? Well that was just good politics, Scott. You're not playing the race card, are you? (I'm kidding, but I'm proving one of my points- it's not always about race. "Revolving Doors" was a fine political weapon to use against Dukakis, and no tank ride could make up for it. You're not going to defend his tank ride are you? Because that was just as politically motivated as the Horton ads.)

George W. Bush, despite his message of inclusion, employed the very same Southern Strategy in 2000 and 2004. In 2000, Bush received the lowest percentage of the African American vote for any Republican since Goldwater.

We may have to compare statistics here. I was told that he doubled the black percentage of votes that he had in the last election. Be that as it may, what does that say about the GOP? It's common knowledge that Blacks are beginning to feel disenfranchised as the DMC continues to take their votes for granted, and I know that the GOP would be only too happy to garner the same. It doesn't follow that the GOP is using a strategy of exclusion, simply because blacks, by large, vote DEM.

As you know, in the South, the Civil War is popularly known as the "War for States' Rights," although the specific right in question was the right to own slaves. It was under the banner of the States' Rights Party that Senator Strom Thurmond launched his 1948 bid for president on a platform of the "segregation of the races and the integrity of each race" -- the campaign that Senator Lott praised. The term has always stood for racial intolerance.

To which I repeat, "so what?" Lott made a stupid comment at a birthday party of a very old man and slipped up. It wasn't code. It was a blunder. Hillary made a comment just recently about Ghandi working in a gas station. No one seems to care. Just a blip on the radar. Ask JWK what I think about Lott. I don't like him for a hundred more reasons, none of which have to do with Strong Thurman, but the insistency by some (and I hope you are not one of) DEMS to paint Strong Thurman and Lott as the core of the GOP is ludicrous, or alternatively, I submit the DMC KKK member and Charlie Rangle. Please.

There are a variety of other coded terms popular with Republicans, some of them references to Civil War battles and leaders or to Confederate president Jefferson Davis (a favorite reference of Mr. Lott's),

One of the things that many Northerner's will never understand about the South (and I hope Paul McEnry reads this) is that the feeling of disenfranchisement and anti-colonialism rage that many minorities feel is felt by most Southerners. Black and White. We didn't like losing the war. We didn't like the Carpet Baggers. We didn't like Reconstruction, and the Civil Rights Movement was difficult as well. (You know how I found out that New Yorkers were lying bags of horseshit when it came to racial hypocricy? By watching Gangs of New York and realizing you boys in New England hanged you a few brothers, too.) Yes, we were wrong, but once again, the Yankees were coming.

Jefferson Davis was a fine military mind, a devoted Christian and a warrior of the South. I understand how that may sound to someone looking for racial code words, but the South doesn't think in such duplicity. (I voted against the Confederate Flag issue, a few years ago, just so you know)

When a Southerner talks about the Confederacy or Jeff Davis, he's not automatically a racist.

others to Southern images of menacing blacks

All the menacing blacks I see images of are in the inner city. And most of those are in the North.

Reagan used the term "welfare queens."

I like that term. I've used the term "breeder". Does that make me a racist?

In Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, queen is a racial term, referring to a certain type of promiscuous black woman.

Are you sure? In 18 days I will have celebrated 33 years in this great state and have NEVER heard that term. Spent a fair amount of time in AL and LA too.

In recent years, the strategy has been more subtle. When Bush prepared to make his presidential acceptance speech in Austin, Tex., in 2000, his podium was carefully placed beside a large and visible monument to soldiers who had fought in the war for states' rights, featuring a plaque lamenting the loss.

I'm not apologizing for the Civil War, if that's what you're looking for.

He had also paid a symbolically important visit to Bob Jones University, where inter-racial dating was banned.

A foolish rule by Bob Jones U. The darker the berry, the sweeter the juice.

[Nate C.]

Mr. Lott has been less subtle, repeatedly saying over the years that the country would have been a better place if Mr. Thurmond had won, and dropping references to the merits of the Confederate era into speeches.

Now you're just repeating yourself.

Now, I will grant you that Bush has had a more diverse cabinet than any other Republican President. But, of the examples you cited, J.C. Watts is no longer in office and neither is Gen. Powell. And Alan Keyes? I think his little choo-choo went around the bend several years ago. He hasn't been a serious figure in Republican politics for some time.

JC Watts is a young man; Keye's lost me when he ran against Obama, but he has a keen mind.

That's not to say that "all Republicans are racists." Far from it. I am friends with many Republicans and none of them are racist in the least. But, at the same time, it's beyond question but that the national GOP has pursued a political strategy of appealing to middle and lower class southern whites' prejudices and fears.

We may have to agree to disagree.

Be that as it may, I think you are also discounting the influence of the religious rightwing on your party. The religious right's organization and money makes it far more influential on the GOP than their numbers might suggest. Indeed, Rove's 2004 strategy, beginning with the attack on gay marriage, was conceived as a way to mobilize evangelical voters. Thus, Bush did not have to "move to the center," as Clinton did, but was able to pursue a religious, conservative agenda because of his support from evangelical Christians.

Maybe. I see Bush as more moderate than you do, but that has to do with perspective. I still say, and always say, that elections are won in the middle. Not the extremes. Guiliani, McCain, Powell and Rice, all nice middle looking candidates.

For the future, I suspect this will make it far more difficult for a moderate to run for the GOP Presidential nomination. McCain and Guliani both have their respective problems with the religious right. McCain, for one, has never forgiven them for South Carolina during the 2000 primary campaign. Guliani, on the other hand, is pro-choice. Frist has been doing his level best to maintain good relations with the religious right and the fight over judicial nominations is a primary example. McCain will continue to do well with New Hampshire Republicans, but his deal on the filibuster has effectively killed any hope he has of gaining the nomination in 2008, IMHO.

Respectfully,

Nate.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Jesse Ventura for the sheer novelty of it....oops that's what got Arnold elected in Cali.

Jesse did pretty well as governor of Minnesota, and amazingly so when one considers the obstructionism he faced from both the Dems and the GOP. He's straight-forward, honest, fiscally responsible and a believer in individual liberties balanced by individual responsibility. I can't think of a single Democrat or Republican who would make a better President.

Truth to tell, I can't think of any current Democrat who I think would have a chance of getting the nomination who I would also vote for. I think reasonably well of Guiliani and McCain, but most of the rest of the GOP bigwigs of the moment, I consider active opponents of liberty and dangers to the welfare of the US. I'd rather have Carrot Top as President than Bill Frist or Jeb Bush.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I heard some bad things about his rule in Minne. from fellow students.

Probably because, horror of horrors, he pushed for more work study programs and things like that, vs. straight handouts to students in a state which was struggling to make budget. You know, offering students the option of working for what they get. I have a hard time faulting that approach, but then, I worked all through college.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

What about the black republicans? The athiest republicans? Dean makes his comments in an attempt to make being a white Christian Republican a bad thing.


Yeah, both of them!

*ducks*

Just kidding.

Anyway, let's distinguish between characterizing the Republican party and it's members as racists and the fact that the GOP pursued an election strategy that was designed to appeal to the fears and prejudices of some southern white voters. That doesn't make every Republican a racist. It means that the party's strategy was one that appealed to a certain group of voters' less than admirable feelings on matters of race. And that strategy has been largely successful. But that doesn't mean that the strategy of the GOP necessarily reflects the feelings of all or even most of its members.

[Guts/Batman]

Jesse did pretty well as governor of Minnesota, and amazingly so when one considers the obstructionism he faced from both the Dems and the GOP. He's straight-forward, honest, fiscally responsible and a believer in individual liberties balanced by individual responsibility. I can't think of a single Democrat or Republican who would make a better President.



I'm no Jesse Ventura expert so i should proibably keep my mouth shut on him. But i did hear some of those things from my fellow students (from minnesota).

I would love it if those virtues stayed with him if becomes President but I am pessimistic about it.

[Mike Smash!]

Something I wrote to Doc Kramer earlier today, on the Books board:

"Honestly, if everything people said about Pat Buchanan on CBR were true, the guy would be foaming the blood of the black Jewish homosexual babies he ate for lunch at the mouth into the shape of a swastika while his glowing red eyes zapped a cross on the ACLU's lawn, igniting it with his Evilvision, and that would be a regular Saturday afternoon for ol' Pat."

I wouldn't consider Buchanan any more xenophobic than most of the people calling for immigration controls, anyway (BTW: most of the polls I've seen say Americans as a whole want immigration to be more restricted than it is now).Is Buchanan pure evil? No, he's not.

If anything he has many of the same problems that I have with free trade and imperialism. There have been times in the last year or so, I have found myself surprised by how eye to eye I might see with him on an issue, but these are almost punctuated remarks that are quite indeed xenophobic, like him just losing it on MSNBC last year about immigration and repeatedly screaming about immigrants who speak Spanish, losing his cool when he had been a cucumber not two seconds before.

Then there are these remarks from wikipedia.org:

"Buchanan has described multiculturalism as "an across-the-board assault on our Anglo-American heritage" and supports restricting immigration into the United States."

"As a member of the Nixon administration, Buchanan urged President Richard Nixon not to visit Coretta Scott King, widow of civil rights leader Martin Luther King. He said that a visit would "outrage many, many people who believe Dr. King was a fraud and a demagogue and perhaps worse.... Others consider him the Devil incarnate. Dr. King is one of the most divisive men in contemporary history.""

Is he a monster? No. But you can't easily dimiss a guy who says things like this on a semi-regular basis.

[JeffreyWKramer]

http://www.mcwdn.org/GOVERNMENT/Frist250.gif

Bill Frist - Republican

Gods, he looks like a weasel. He kind of resembles the crooked lawyer from THE SIMPSONS.

[Guts/Batman]

The only way i could be for restricting immigration is if it was done with no biases whatsoever

But i'm pessimistic on that as well...

[JeffreyWKramer]

Forgive my political ignorance (I don't get into political mode until voting time) but who is Frist and why do people not like him?


Senate majority leader, physician by education but willing to engage in unethical practices (as in his long-distance diagnosis of Terri Schiavo, a person he's never met who suffers from a type of condition with which he has no qualifications to diagnose) for political gain, toadie to Bush, instrumental in attempts to wipe out the checks and balances function of the US Senate, caters to the religious extremists.

Frist is a perfect example of the sort of politician who should be tarred and feathered and run out of town.

[Mike Smash!]

I've heard many Democrats spout of racist comments. Are we going to play a game of one up-manship? Is that all this is about? Not at all...

Loud mouth idiots you hear on the radio? If you think Coulter is representative of the average Republican then I'd say that is a lack of perspective on your part. Do you want we should take the looniest Green we can find and use that person as an example for what you believe?First of all, I stated clearly -- though you didn't want to read it apparently -- that people like Coulter and those who made racist remarks and championed the Republican Party were not representative of the party rank and file as a whole. Go back and read it.

You are reading this as me saying that "all or most Republicans are racist" when I haven't said anything like that in the least.

What I'm saying is that among that small minority of people who are very racist, a large majority of them vote Republican or coservatively.

I openly acknowedged that there are racists in every party. I pointed out a history of racist Democrats, many of which became Republicans afte 1964 and many who refused to make that switch.

I never once said anything about evangelical Christians or Southerners or all Republicans. Those have been tossed into this debate by Nate or yourself to put words in my mouth.

Or maybe you have, but just didn't realize it. I'm sure it is easier to tune them out or make excuses for their behavior when they are on "your team." Dean's comments, for example. The GOP is nothing but white Christians? What about the black republicans? The athiest republicans? Dean makes his comments in an attempt to make being a white Christian Republican a bad thing.And what Dean said was a very stupid thing and I think it's no different from equally stupid things I've heard Republicans say of Democrats. I wasn't defending one and attacking the other, I was condemning both.

What do you hope to gain by doing this, mike? My dad is a white Republican. He's currently married to a Vietnamese woman and is probably the only non-racist member of his family from his generation. What do you think you would gain by telling him most racists are Republicans? I truly don't know what you think you are gaining by making comments like that, but I can tell you they won't be positively reciprocated.I have and not trying to get anything out of this, except to defend my own name here.

This isn't part of some plan. I made one remark that Nate turned into a debate and misinterpretted. It's still up if you want to read it. I never made a remark about all Republicans, all Southerners, or all Evengelical Christians ONCE in this debate.

Not ONCE.

I never called you, Nate or your dad racist. What I said is that a majority of those racists will end up voting Republican.

Just because I say that a seagull eats trash and a seagull is a bird, does NOT mean that I'm saying that all birds eat trash.

Don't put words in my mouth.

[Mike Smash!]

Senate majority leader, physician by education but willing to engage in unethical practices (as in his long-distance diagnosis of Terri Schiavo, a person he's never met who suffers from a type of condition with which he has no qualifications to diagnose) for political gain, toadie to Bush, instrumental in attempts to wipe out the checks and balances function of the US Senate, caters to the religious extremists.

Frist is a perfect example of the sort of politician who should be tarred and feathered and run out of town.He once also maintained that AIDS could be transmitted through sweat and tears.

[Loren]

There is no proof one can give for this, not accurately anyways.

But the rhetoric on the far Right, like with Coulter and so on...which dip into racism once in a while, overwhelmingly call for their supporters to vote Republican.

And I've yet to see a Left of center candidate call for the same sort of xenophobic jargon that people like Pat Buchanan has in the past when he ran for the Republican nomination for President.

No, it's a statement of experience. I haven't seen even a fraction of racists I've encountered in public or at work calling for Democrats to get elected.

Are we counting anti-semitism as a form of racism? Because in my experience, anti-semitism is more common on the left than on the right.

Cynthia McKinney's 2002 election comes to mind. When her father (a long-time Democratic Georgia legislator) was asked about her endorsements, he replied "Jews have bought everybody. Jews," and then spelled out J-E-W-S for the reporter. Both Cynthia and her dad lost in that election.

And on a related note, I've become a bit surprised of late as to how xenophobic many Europeans seem to be, especially in the more liberal countries like France or Holland. Fears of Muslim immigrants and "the Polish plumber" are apparently commonplace, and the objections to Turkey's membership in the EU just strike me as weird.

Loren

[JeffreyWKramer]

Something I wrote to Doc Kramer earlier today, on the Books board:

"Honestly, if everything people said about Pat Buchanan on CBR were true, the guy would be foaming the blood of the black Jewish homosexual babies he ate for lunch at the mouth into the shape of a swastika while his glowing red eyes zapped a cross on the ACLU's lawn, igniting it with his Evilvision, and that would be a regular Saturday afternoon for ol' Pat."

Back during one of his attempts at getting the GOP nomination for the Presidency, Buchanan was arguing for putting people with HIV in concentration camps. I agree with Pat re: many fiscal and trade issues and some immigration issues, but by and large the guy is a nut.

[phoenixrising]

JC Watts is a young man; Keye's lost me when he ran against Obama, but he has a keen mind.



You seriously defend Alan Keyes? The gay-bashing man whose own daughter is gay? Sure, he speaks well....but from the speeches I've covered, they were pretty damn hateful.

[macul]

Not at all...

First of all, I stated clearly -- though you didn't want to read it apparently -- that people like Coulter and those who made racist remarks and championed the Republican Party were not representative of the party rank and file as a whole. Go back and read it.

Yet that is who you use as an example? "Coulter, who might be a racist, is not a representative of the Republican party, but she calls for people to vote Republican." That's one hell of way of saying Coulter is not representative of the Republican party.

What I'm saying is that among that small minority of people who are very racist, a large majority of them vote Republican or coservatively.

Repeating that same mantra over and over doesn't make it true. Again, I ask for proof other than what you claim to be true.

I have and not trying to get anything out of this, except to defend my own name here.

I would think the best way to do that is something along the lines of, "I made a stupid remark that I can in no way prove, so I'm going to withdraw said remark."

[phoenixrising]

And I think it should be noted that a lot of the poltical strategy discussed here that seems to incite a lot of outrage with the conservative/Republican posters has been studied/cited in political science classes. It isn't just a matter of opinion that the Doc and Mike are espousing about past (and current) GOP strategy...so try not to get so incredulous.

(but I'm sure someone will dismiss that college learnin' as liberal tripe....)

[phoenixrising]

Repeating that same mantra over and over doesn't make it true. Again, I ask for proof other than what you claim to be true.



Look, can we all just drop this? Mike and I might belive this wholeheartedly from personal experience, but it is impossible to prove, which makes it all the easier for you to ignore. So let's drop it already.

[Guts/Batman]

Probably because, horror of horrors, he pushed for more work study programs and things like that, vs. straight handouts to students in a state which was struggling to make budget. You know, offering students the option of working for what they get. I have a hard time faulting that approach, but then, I worked all through college.


I can't fault it either. I don't think any student (me included) really comprehends what it means to be "going through a hard time" until they graduate and find out that in certain areas jobs in those area are almost non existant.

I am thankful i have my job. I hear kids I work with complain about how much they hate their job (mostly sacking/cashiering). I work at a grocery store and the ones say they hate it are the ones who don't do shit at the store. While I like my job (can/bottle redemption center) because I see it as easy most of the time and keep busy most of time.

As a result, most of the managers prefer it when I am working (there is only 1 can/bottles person on shift) as opposed to other can/bottle people.

Right now I am at a crossroads myself. I hate journalism but love history but there's not exactly a ton of jobs in history. So I have no idea what I'm going to do.

My first semester at college I did work/study and worked on the weekends. I had a financial plan, but then in October i was laid off by the work/study because the food service place wasn't getting enough people coming in. So i had to work during the week the rest of the semester and spring (after which i said I will never do again) to make up for what happened.

But I am sure that's nothing compared to whats going to happen.

[Tages]

Back during one of his attempts at getting the GOP nomination for the Presidency, Buchanan was arguing for putting people with HIV in concentration camps. I agree with Pat re: many fiscal and trade issues and some immigration issues, but by and large the guy is a nut.
Source, s'il vous plait?

[Alex]

Wouldn't vote.
Bill Frist (Republican)
Frist does nothing for me, i just voted for Bush because i could deal with how right he is, but frist is even more right, and i couldn't deal with that at all. Sides, he couldn't win with or without my vote
Hillary Rodham Clinton (Democrat)
I wouldn't vote for hillary if you put hot pokers inside my ass and then punched me in the face with spiked gloves while saying "I will stop if you vote for Hillary"
Peter Miguel Camejo (Green)
Ha! Yeah right
Jesse Ventura (Independent)
Not enough experience for my tastes
Michael Badnarik (Libertarian)
Not sane enough for my taste, shame.
Michael Anthony Peroutka (Constitution)
Who?

[macul]

Look, can we all just drop this? Mike and I might belive this wholeheartedly from personal experience, but it is impossible to prove, which makes it all the easier for you to ignore. So let's drop it already.

Ah. OK. So I can just say that the journalism field contains more liars than any other field. I don't have to present proof of such a claim. I can just say I know it to be true from personal experience. And of course you will not attempt to counter that claim, correct? Does that sound even remotely logical to you? You admit your evidence is anecdotal. Is that really what you want to depend on?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Source, s'il vous plait?

I'll Google it later, but trust me on this one, Tages. I was around and politically aware back then, and he came off as nuttier than anyone other than Lyndon LaRouche.

[phoenixrising]

Ah. OK. So I can just say that the journalism field contains more liars than any other field. I don't have to present proof of such a claim. I can just say I know it to be true from personal experience. And of course you will not attempt to counter that claim, correct? Does that sound even remotely logical to you? You admit your evidence is anecdotal. Is that really what you want to depend on?

Oh, for Christ's sake.

You can claim anything you want from anecdotal evidence, but it doesn't make it fact. (besides, I'll bet you don't know any journalists on a friendly basis anyway)

Would I depend on anecdotal evidence for my own argument and beliefs? Yes. I can depend on what I see with my own eyes and hear every day in real life and espoused on blogs all over the web. But will I claim it as irrefutable fact? No. Would I ever use it as a fact, say, in a story? No way.

[Mike Smash!]

Wouldn't vote.
Bill Frist (Republican)
Frist does nothing for me, i just voted for Bush because i could deal with how right he is, but frist is even more right, and i couldn't deal with that at all. Sides, he couldn't win with or without my vote
Hillary Rodham Clinton (Democrat)
I wouldn't vote for hillary if you put hot pokers inside my ass and then punched me in the face with spiked gloves while saying "I will stop if you vote for Hillary"
Peter Miguel Camejo (Green)
Ha! Yeah right
Jesse Ventura (Independent)
Not enough experience for my tastes
Michael Badnarik (Libertarian)
Not sane enough for my taste, shame.
Michael Anthony Peroutka (Constitution)
Who?Alex, I'd implore you to vote, if only so you can bitch about the results later.

I'd recommend simply writing in "None of the Above", but still vote.

[Mike Smash!]

I'll Google it later, but trust me on this one, Tages. I was around and politically aware back then, and he came off as nuttier than anyone other than Lyndon LaRouche.And LaRouche is the nuttiest one there is...

The one thing I've learned from working on campaigns and in politics is that the one thing that nearly all people of all genders, ages, religions, sexual orientations, races and political worldviews can agree on is that Lyndon LaRouche is a total loon.

[Mike Smash!]

Gods, he looks like a weasel. He kind of resembles the crooked lawyer from THE SIMPSONS.I was nice. I tried to find the most flattering picture I could of every candidate.

[Alex]

Alex, I'd implore you to vote, if only so you can bitch about the results later.


Heres the thing with that, and im going to use a strong word.
FUCK that sentiment.
It isn't my duty as an american citizen to vote between a group of people i consider to be jackasses. I'm not going to pick the least jackass, and at least Bush had issues i really backed him on, Frist has shit, and i don't trust him.
Heres a fun bit, right now, i wouldn't vote for Mccain either, and he was who i wanted to vote for, and if i ain't voting for hilary, you know i wouldn't vote for a green, and the libertarians run a guy like badarnik again, i'm not voting.
The only guy on the list who could swing me is Ventura, maybe...maybe, i might vote for him because i like what he says and know he wouldn't have a chance of winning.
But with that list of candidates as a whole? Ill just skip it.
Or write in Frank Castle...this might be the year i write in Frank Castle.

[Mike Smash!]

Heres the thing with that, and im going to use a strong word.
FUCK that sentiment.
It isn't my duty as an american citizen to vote between a group of people i consider to be jackasses. I'm not going to pick the least jackass, and at least Bush had issues i really backed him on, Frist has shit, and i don't trust him.
Heres a fun bit, right now, i wouldn't vote for Mccain either, and he was who i wanted to vote for, and if i ain't voting for hilary, you know i wouldn't vote for a green, and the libertarians run a guy like badarnik again, i'm not voting.
The only guy on the list who could swing me is Ventura, maybe...maybe, i might vote for him because i like what he says and know he wouldn't have a chance of winning.
But with that list of candidates as a whole? Ill just skip it.
Or write in Frank Castle...this might be the year i write in Frank Castle.It's your call, Alex.. but think of it this way. If you don't vote and you think the results suck, then you have no right to complain.

You had your chance to at least register a protest vote. Hell, campaign for "None of the Above", but if you sit on your ass, you've got no credibility to complain.

Voting is the least you can do and if you don't do that, why should I care if you don't like how it turned out?

[macul]

Oh, for Christ's sake.

You can claim anything you want from anecdotal evidence, but it doesn't make it fact. (besides, I'll bet you don't know any journalists on a friendly basis anyway)

That's precisely my point. You can't depend upon anecdotal evidence. You admit your evidence for this belief is anecdotal, so if that doesn't make it fact then how can you tell me what you believe is absolutely true?

By the way, nice shot about not knowing any journalists on a friendly basis. I didn't insult you. Try to return the favor if you don't mind.

I'm not trying to be a hardass here, phoenix. I just don't understand this line of reasoning.

[Nate C.]

[QUOTE=Mike Smash!]Nate,

I want you to step back a bit because emotions are running high. If I believed in God, I'd say that my Comcast connection cut out at a very good time, because I don't want to fight you over this.


LOL. I'm not looking for a fight either, Mike. I'm looking for you to say you mis-spoke, you were wrong, or defend this statement:

"Listen, I am in no way saying that Republicans are all racist. In no way.

But a lot of them are, you have to admit." (post 43)

You also said that for every vote Rice got for being a black female, she would lose a Republican vote. (inferring that they wouldn't vote for her because she's black and female, and also that that's a helluvalotta votes)

I've said to you before, Mike. Politics aint my thing. I get in the occasional scuffle, but defending Chrisitanity is, and always will be, my agenda. And even then, only when it's defensable. Politics is you're thang, and that's why you feel the pressure. I've had a pretty good day. But trust me, I'm not looking for your skin on my mantle. I do expect a moderator of this board to be able to defend the statements you've made or say you were wrong. I don't think that's asking too much.


Largely because I think you're proceding from the assumption of things that I did not say.

You did say the things I've said you said, Mike. Just own up to em. Hey, at least you didn't have to apologize to an entire forum.

I never once said that all Republicans were racists.

Nope. Just "a lot".

I never once said that all Southerners were racists.

And simply because you are both, does not mean that I am including you in my remarks. My remarks -- like the ones I made a month ago about the rabid religious right, of which you are also not a part -- had a very specific target.

But I am part of the religious Right, Mike. And that's my point. Generalizations suck. And you're not using the high calibered rifle that you think you are.

Racism is alive and well in the United States, I am sad to say. There are racists in every political party inevitably. I'm sure we have even a couple in the Greens, though they'd likely be heavily closeted. There are a small pocket of racist Democrats who didn't leave the Democrats after the Civil Rights Act was signed and have been taught never to vote for a Republican from birth, likely because of Lincoln and the Civil War. I imagine Fred Phelps is such a person.

Note your qualifiers, Mike. A "couple" in the Greens. A "few" in the DEMS and "a lot" in the GOP. And tell me you stand by that assertion.

But by and large these racist voters went by and large to the Republican Party, which has more talk of "state's rights" (which in past decades was code for segregation rights with people like Strom Thurmond and George Wallace), their stricter stances on immigration, if not the handful of them whose rhetoric is very xenophobic like Pat Buchanan's who ran twice for the Republican nomination for President on such a platfrom that talked about "protecting American culture". You also see twinges of racism in things said by Rush Limbaugh who once told an African American caller in the 70s to "take the bone out of your nose and call me back", to Ann Coulter making remarks about how Arabs "smell" or calling Helen Thomas "that old Arab" to Michael Savage saying that racism is good because it helps us kill our enemies in wars and calls for the U.S. military to round up undocumented workers in L.A. and build a wall around the city. Not to mention Bob Jones University's longstanding policy against interracial dating.

Or Jesse Jackson's "Hymie-Town" or Charlie Rangle's "Redneck President" comments? There's all kinds of racism, Mike. And it's everywhere.

But I never even mentioned the South in my argument, Nate. That was all you. I never once said that all Republicans are racist or that the RNC is an overtly racist party

No, you just said "a lot" of Republicans and Evangelicals, when in fact the South is mealy with both groups.

What I did say is that of all of the parties out there aside from the truly fringe Nazi-esque third parties that are largely dead, most American racist will go to the Republican Party over the Democrats or others.

I agree with that in principle.


I want you to step back and realize that I am not painting this with as wide of a brush as you think I am and that this argument is coming out of a misunderstanding.

I agree that it's a misunderstanding, Mike. I don't feel attacked. I feel like you need to re-evaluate your comments. Or defend them. With hard data. Otherwise, as they stand, they are slanderous. (or libel, I guess)

I know you're a good guy, Nate.

I know you're a good guy too, Mike. That's why I think you just made a mistake. I just wanna see you own up to it.

People say nothing but good things about you,

lies, all lies

but I think you're being too sensitive and reading things into what I'm saying that isn't actually there.

Nope. Read post 43. And know that I'm cool with you, and sincerely want you to just get it right.

So please, step back from the "Klan" remarks.

I questioned my usage. LOL. I was afraid it would be misunderstood. The fact is, I have never, in my 33 years of living in Mississippi, met a Klan Member. (openly, I may have met one or two, but they haven't let me in)

I am and have always made remarks like this with a very tight aim. I am in no way aiming the spectrum at you, Southerners, or all Republicans.

I see your heart, Mike, but you do need to clean up post 43.

As for the "stacking the deck", I see your perspective. (post 41) and while I still disagree, I see your point of view. I am sorry, but I remain unconvinced on the other.

Nate. :)

[Fabian]

If you don't vote and you think the results suck, then you have no right to complain.
Actually, yes I do

[Alex]

It's your call, Alex.. but think of it this way. If you don't vote and you think the results suck, then you have no right to complain.

You had your chance to at least register a protest vote. Hell, campaign for "None of the Above", but if you sit on your ass, you've got no credibility to complain.

Voting is the least you can do and if you don't do that, why should I care if you don't like how it turned out?
Ill have as much if not more crediability then a lot of people.
I wouldn't be voting for one guy or another, i wouldn't be voting because all of the parties picked shit candidates. I can complaign about your party, the republicans, and the democrats with no stake in the game because i thought they all picked shitty peoplem, that gives me quite a bit of credibility.
I wouldn't complaign about the results sucking, with those choices, the results will suck reguardless, ill complaign about the parties as a whole before and after for giving me those choices.
Sitting on my ass or lining up to vote for no one, fuck them for giving me those options.
Theres my protest.

[Mike Smash!]

Actually, yes I doYeah, but you're not a citizen. Alex is.

[phoenixrising]

That's precisely my point. You can't depend upon anecdotal evidence. You admit your evidence for this belief is anecdotal, so if that doesn't make it fact then how can you tell me what you believe is absolutely true?

By the way, nice shot about not knowing any journalists on a friendly basis. I didn't insult you. Try to return the favor if you don't mind.

I'm not trying to be a hardass here, phoenix. I just don't understand this line of reasoning.

Where in any of this did I say it was fact? Mike did but I did not. I said it was anecdotal fromt he very start and somehow you still seem to think you've trapped me in something. I don't even know what reasoning I'm supposed to be defending.

And I fail to see where I insulted you. I just said I'll bet you aren't friends with any journalists. (hey, most people aren't)

[Alex]

And I fail to see where I insulted you. I just said I'll bet you aren't friends with any journalists. (hey, most people aren't)
I am!
But she votes republican.

[macul]

Where in any of this did I say it was fact? Mike did but I did not. I said it was anecdotal fromt he very start and somehow you still seem to think you've trapped me in something. I don't even know what reasoning I'm supposed to be defending.

Well, considering I was holding this conversation with mike...

[phoenixrising]

Well, considering I was holding this conversation with mike...

...sooo you're just attacking me to be a jerk then?

[Mike Smash!]

LOL. I'm not looking for a fight either, Mike. I'm looking for you to say you mis-spoke, you were wrong, or defend this statement:

"Listen, I am in no way saying that Republicans are all racist. In no way.

But a lot of them are, you have to admit." (post 43)

Yes. I hold to that, but I think you're misreading that. By "alot" I mean alot. I don't mean "most" or "a majority of", just "alot".

Like if I have a 1000 people in a room and 100 of them are left-handed, that's a lot of left handed people. They aren't the majority by bar, but that is a lot.

And before you read into that, I'm not saying that 10% of Republicans are racists. I'm sure it's much less than that and honestly, there's no way to gauge it.

You also said that for every vote Rice got for being a black female, she would lose a Republican vote. (inferring that they wouldn't vote for her because she's black and female, and also that that's a helluvalotta votes)And I hold to this and have defended it.

If Condi Rice runs as the nominee of the Republican Party. That minority of racist voters will not vote for her. And that loss won't make up for the vote it will get her. The African American vote is overwhelmingly Democratic and as is the women's vote -- both undeservingly IMO, but that's a different debate.

And given Condi's tight attachment to the Bush Admnistration and the odds of those voters voting en masse for any Republican candidate, regardless of race or gender, I can't see that making up for the loss of that racist vote or even a vote that believes that women shouldn't be President.. who knows?

I'm not going to apologize for something I'm not sorry for and truly believe, Nate.

I've said to you before, Mike. Politics aint my thing. I get in the occasional scuffle, but defending Chrisitanity is, and always will be, my agenda. And even then, only when it's defensable. Politics is you're thang, and that's why you feel the pressure. I've had a pretty good day. But trust me, I'm not looking for your skin on my mantle. I do expect a moderator of this board to be able to defend the statements you've made or say you were wrong. I don't think that's asking too much.Yes, and I've chosen to defend them and I have. You may not like that defense, but I'm sticking to my beliefs on this.

And like my earlier debate with you, I was talking about specifics while you continued to take them as either generalities or as personal attacks. They were neither.

You did say the things I've said you said, Mike. Just own up to em. Hey, at least you didn't have to apologize to an entire forum.No, I haven't.

Note your qualifiers, Mike. A "couple" in the Greens. A "few" in the DEMS and "a lot" in the GOP. And tell me you stand by that assertion.Yes because racism or any sort of intolerance is very much not tolerated in even small doses in the Democratic or Green Parties.

If you're racist or slightly so, you better keep it to yourself.

And yeah, I think those qualifiers are fair. I could never imagine a candidate who talked like Pat Buchanan getting very far in the Democratic or Green Presidential primaries, let alone winning states or coming in well...

Or Jesse Jackson's "Hymie-Town" or Charlie Rangle's "Redneck President" comments? There's all kinds of racism, Mike. And it's everywhere.Jackson's quote was indeed a racist one and he rightfully retracted it and should be ashamed that it left his lips.

With "redneck" I don't consider it a "racial" slur or even a regional one.

No, you just said "a lot" of Republicans and Evangelicals, when in fact the South is mealy with both groups.I never said ONE THING about evangelicals in this thread, but you have. Every time I've even mentioned them was in response to you or macul.

I agree that it's a misunderstanding, Mike. I don't feel attacked. I feel like you need to re-evaluate your comments. Or defend them. With hard data. Otherwise, as they stand, they are slanderous. (or libel, I guess)I completely disagree and I will not retract what I've seen with my eyes is common enough to state as true, though I wouldn't act like my knowledge on this in infallible, certainly.

I know you're a good guy too, Mike. That's why I think you just made a mistake. I just wanna see you own up to it.I won't apologize for something I don't believe is wrong. I stand by what I said and I think you're being overly sensitive.

I questioned my usage. LOL. I was afraid it would be misunderstood. The fact is, I have never, in my 33 years of living in Mississippi, met a Klan Member. (openly, I may have met one or two, but they haven't let me in)I know it was hyperbole to make a point, but hyperbole always implies emotion.

As for the "stacking the deck", I see your perspective. (post 41) and while I still disagree, I see your point of view. I am sorry, but I remain unconvinced on the other.

I "stacked the deck" as I stated earlier because this wasn't about the Democrats or the Republicans at all. This thread was really meant to be about Ventura and I purposely picked the two most polarizing major party candidates to see how he would do against the backdrop of an ugly partisan race. I do, however feel that they have the best shot at this moment, given the leadership of both of their parties.

[Mike Smash!]

Well, considering I was holding this conversation with mike...And I thought I was having a conversation with Nate...

[macul]

...sooo you're just attacking me to be a jerk then?

I didn't attack you. You injected yourself into the conversation and backed up mike's claims. How can you seriously say something like you did and NOT expect someone to question how you came about with that conclusion and what you can do to back it up?

[Mike Smash!]

I didn't attack you. You injected yourself into the conversation and backed up mike's claims. How can you seriously say something like you did and NOT expect someone to question how you came about with that conclusion and what you can do to back it up?And you injected yourself into my conversation with Nate and backed up his claims, which you have every right to do, being that this is