# Rudy for Prez



## bwep (Apr 17, 2005)

I see that Rudy Giuliani has take a step toward the 2008 Presidential bid by filing papers to initiate an "exploratory commission." What does everyone think. It looks like 2008 could get very interesting....


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

I'm encouraged by this. Rudy can be liberal in some areas but I like him a lot better than McCain who is a RINO.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

I am not a big Rudy fan. I feel like when he was the US Attorney in NY he tried to make headlines rather than follow good law.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Well, he'd certainly be tough on all those homeless people.

I think Rudy gets waaaaay too much credit for his 9/11 demeanor. He did what a mayor is supposed to do, and it's unimaginable to me that David Dinkins or Michael Bloomberg wouldn't have been able to put on the same brave face that Rudy did. It's what politicians do. I think he milks it. 

I lived in Manhattan during the early years of Rudy's time as mayor and I thought he was pretty much a fascist. So Times Square became more palatable to tourists, big deal.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

crs said:


> I think Rudy gets waaaaay too much credit for his 9/11 demeanor. He did what a mayor is supposed to do, and it's unimaginable to me that David Dinkins or Michael Bloomberg wouldn't have been able to put on the same brave face that Rudy did. It's what politicians do. I think he milks it.


My brother-in-law is an artist and I once commented to him regarding Jackson Pollock that "a child could paint that." His reply was perhaps but he didn't do it, it was Jackson Pollock who did.

I think the same is true with what you said. It wasn't Dinkins or Bloomberg in office, it was Rudy and it was Rudy's response. By the way its not as easy as you would think. Just look at how the Honorable Mayor Nagin reacted during Katrina.

p.s. I've come to really appreciate Pollock over the years.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Hmmm. He's made Times Square safe for the Walt Disney Co. and on 9/11 he wasn't circling the country in a plane, so I suppose that makes him qualified. 

Tell you what: He's definitely more qualified than my neighbor, the guy incessantly concerned with his yard.

I don't see what makes him particularly qualified. Foreign policy experience?


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

I think what makes him qualified is his no-bullshit approach to things.


----------



## Jimmy G (Mar 23, 2006)

If Rudy is a republican ( I dare not say a conservative ) , then Morris Dees is a member of Buchanan Brigades.
Next thing you know, there are whole 3 neocons ( McCain, Lieberman, Giuliani ) running in '08 https://imageshack.us


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

Too many skeletons in Rudys closets(plural)! As Us Attorney, Mayor, Married Man, Health Issues, etc.

He's not electable & IMHO can you imagine all 3 branches of Government controlled by Democrats.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The Supreme Court is Democrat?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Rudy won't win the nomination but if he did I would vote for him. He does, however, sometimes have an inclination towards the nanny state - witness his draconian ban on smoking in restaurants in NYC in 1995. Lets also not forget that prior to 9-11 his second mayoral term was viewed as an unfulfilled promise after his stellar first term and he wasn't particularly well liked. Along with Cristyne Lategano (who spells Christine this way???) and Donna Hannover much of the New York public had grown tired of Rudy. But 9-11 happened and he rose to the occassion and he has been political gold ever since. McCain is a better choice but the GOP could do far, far worse than Rudy.

Karl


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

crs said:


> Well, he'd certainly be tough on all those homeless people.
> 
> I think Rudy gets waaaaay too much credit for his 9/11 demeanor. He did what a mayor is supposed to do, and it's unimaginable to me that David Dinkins or Michael Bloomberg wouldn't have been able to put on the same brave face that Rudy did. It's what politicians do. I think he milks it.
> 
> I lived in Manhattan during the early years of Rudy's time as mayor and I thought he was pretty much a fascist. So Times Square became more palatable to tourists, big deal.


I find Rudy very unlikable as a person. And I think it was Al Sharpton who said that after 9/11, the people of New York would have even rallied behind Big Bird. But if he was running against Cthulhu, I guess I would have to vote the lesser evil, as usual.

It also made me pretty mad that he didn't step up and run against Hillary Clinton when he was needed. He might have been able to send her off to bake cookies. I think his excuse was prostate cancer. What finally happened with that?

I don't think Rudy would have a chance of carrying the South.


----------



## bwep (Apr 17, 2005)

Very interesting responses to date. I was not aware of the distaste for Giuliani that has been commented above. I guess I am quite naive and uneducated. However, he can present a formidable opponent for Hillary Clinton, who would be awful for those of us in the medical profession. I am not sure that she is electable anyways.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Liberty Ship said:


> I find Rudy very unlikable as a person. And I think it was Al Sharpton who said that after 9/11, the people of New York would have even rallied behind Big Bird. But if he was running against Cthulhu, I guess I would have to vote the lesser evil, as usual.


But it wasn't Big Bird they rallied around. It wasn't Sharpton, it wasn't Senator Clinton, it wasn't Gov. Pataki, it wasn't Sen. Schumer, it wasn't Rep. Rangel, it wasn't Rep. King or even the POTUS. It was Rudy. I think Sharpton's comment only serves to show you how stupid he really is, but then again that's not something that requires a special event in order to come out.



> It also made me pretty mad that he didn't step up and run against Hillary Clinton when he was needed. He might have been able to send her off to bake cookies. I think his excuse was prostate cancer. What finally happened with that?


They guy had cancer for goodness sake. It may be under control now and he may feel more confident about making a run. Remember in 2000 he had just found out.


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

*She is, if she runs against a polarizing candidate!*



bwep said:


> Very interesting responses to date. I was not aware of the distaste for Giuliani that has been commented above. I guess I am quite naive and uneducated. However, he can present a formidable opponent for Hillary Clinton, who would be awful for those of us in the medical profession. I am not sure that she is electable anyways.


I shudder at Hillary running (though she probably will run!).

The silver lining is that she is unelectable against any reasonable GOP candidate. Wheather it be McCain, Giuliani, Romney, etc.

If she would've run against someone like George Allen, or Rick Santorum she could win. So maybe that's one of the pluses in last weeks election!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I like Rudy on the outside, but his horridly messy divorce and the appearance of an ego bother me some.

I'd much rather have him than Hillary if it comes down to it.

(Hillary just seems so fake to me.)


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Hmmm. He's made Times Square safe for the Walt Disney Co. and on 9/11 he wasn't circling the country in a plane, so I suppose that makes him qualified.
> 
> Tell you what: He's definitely more qualified than my neighbor, the guy incessantly concerned with his yard.
> 
> I don't see what makes him particularly qualified. Foreign policy experience?


One could also inquire as to the qualifications of say, Obama. Qualifications have become a second tier concern in running for Prez.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

rnoldh said:


> I shudder at Hillary running (though she probably will run!).
> 
> The silver lining is that she is unelectable against any reasonable GOP candidate. Wheather it be McCain, Giuliani, Romney, etc.
> 
> If she would've run against someone like George Allen, or Rick Santorum she could win. So maybe that's one of the pluses in last weeks election!


I wouldn't count her out yet.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

True enough, on both counts.



Wayfarer said:


> One could also inquire as to the qualifications of say, Obama. Qualifications have become a second tier concern in running for Prez.


----------



## bwep (Apr 17, 2005)

What qualifications do you think are necessary? I must admit that I think Obama is well-spoken, though again, am quite unfamiliar with his policies. I like McCain, but worry that his age may prevent a successful elecetion. Damn, what do I know other than how to operate on the brain....


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> The Supreme Court is Democrat?


Not sure I would characterize it that way but it is eroding our private property rights in violent fashion and does tend to look to international law in some matters instead of the Constitution.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

bwep said:


> What qualifications do you think are necessary? I must admit that I think Obama is well-spoken, though again, am quite unfamiliar with his policies.


You just perfectly summed up the soft racism in the appeal of Obama. The clause you left out is, "...Obama is well spoken *and black*...." I would be offended if all my demographic group had to be was well spoken to be considered presidential timbre (Dubya nixes that too, lol).

Obama is undoubtedly exceedingly intelligent. He went to Hawaii's most elite private school through Grade 12, his undergrad at Columbia, then law school at Harvard to become the head of the Law Review. (Is Columbia private? If so, I do see a trend there, all private schools.) The fact he is well spoken is not to be wondered at, spending so much of his formative years at Ponahu. It is just outrageous, to me anyways, that truly, his main appeal seems to be he is black, speaks well, and wears standard upper level business attire well.

Regards


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I would think Obama's being black (at least partly) is still more of a liability for him in this country than an asset. We've come a long way since the 1960s, but I wonder just how many people out there would refuse to vote for him simply because of race.

Maybe we'll have the opportunity to find out.

In this media-driven age, though, being well spoken is clearly an advantage. Some would say it's a prerequisite for office.



Wayfarer said:


> You just perfectly summed up the soft racism in the appeal of Obama. The clause you left out is, "...Obama is well spoken *and black*...." I would be offended if all my demographic group had to be was well spoken to be considered presidential timbre (Dubya nixes that too, lol).
> 
> Obama is undoubtedly exceedingly intelligent. He went to Hawaii's most elite private school through Grade 12, his undergrad at Columbia, then law school at Harvard to become the head of the Law Review. (Is Columbia private? If so, I do see a trend there, all private schools.) The fact he is well spoken is not to be wondered at, spending so much of his formative years at Ponahu. It is just outrageous, to me anyways, that truly, his main appeal seems to be he is black, speaks well, and wears standard upper level business attire well.
> 
> Regards


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> I would think Obama's being black (at least partly) is still more of a liability for him in this country than an asset. We've come a long way since the 1960s, but I wonder just how many people out there would refuse to vote for him simply because of race.


Bertie, he would of course be running as a Dem. By god man! Are you implying people that vote Dem could possibly include racists? I never thought I would see the day that was admitted by a liberal!

Cheers


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

rnoldh said:


> I shudder at Hillary running (though she probably will run!).
> 
> The silver lining is that she is unelectable against any reasonable GOP candidate. Wheather it be McCain, Giuliani, Romney, etc.
> 
> If she would've run against someone like George Allen, or Rick Santorum she could win. So maybe that's one of the pluses in last weeks election!


Perhaps an Allen/Santorum ticket?


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

pendennis said:


> Perhaps an Allen/Santorum ticket?


Newt is as far right as I'm interested in voting. Anyone beyond him is unelectable.


----------



## The Wife (Feb 4, 2006)

What do I think*?* I hope that either the Honorable Rudolph Giuliani or Senator McCain will be the Republican presidential candidate in the year 2008. I like them because they are independent thinkers, and no, McCain and Giuliani are not "neo-cons". Hey, maybe a winning ticket would include the two of them. I don't believe there would be an "ego" problem.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

I'd like to see Al Gore as President of the US. Perhaps with Hillary or John Edwards 
as Vice-President.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Fogey said:


> I'd like to see Al Gore as President of the US. Perhaps with Hillary or John Edwards
> as Vice-President.


If it was a Gore/Clinton ticket,who would be the alpha male? Al or Hillary?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> I would think Obama's being black (at least partly) is still more of a liability for him in this country than an asset. We've come a long way since the 1960s, but I wonder just how many people out there would refuse to vote for him simply because of race.
> 
> Maybe we'll have the opportunity to find out.
> 
> In this media-driven age, though, being well spoken is clearly an advantage. Some would say it's a prerequisite for office.


It couldn't possibly be for any other reason I suppose? Do you really feel that his race would be the primary source of hesitation for voting for him?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

He didn't say that. It's pretty clear that for any candidate there are a number of reasons to vote for the person and a number of reasons to vote against him or her. The point was that whatever reasons may lead some people to vote against Obama, race is an additional reason counting against him that does not count against the rest of the likely candidates.

The success of the racist campaign the RNC ran against Harold Ford demonstrates the likely effect of Obama's race on his chances.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Right on, Jack. And as we all know: Macaca (still) happens. And this from a former potential GOP presidential candidate.



jackmccullough said:


> He didn't say that. It's pretty clear that for any candidate there are a number of reasons to vote for the person and a number of reasons to vote against him or her. The point was that whatever reasons may lead some people to vote against Obama, race is an additional reason counting against him that does not count against the rest of the likely candidates.
> 
> The success of the racist campaign the RNC ran against Harold Ford demonstrates the likely effect of Obama's race on his chances.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> The success of the racist campaign the RNC ran against Harold Ford demonstrates the likely effect of Obama's race on his chances.


Are you referring to the commercial? I can't think of any other ALLEGED racist behavior on the part of the RNC or the Corker campaign. How would people have interpreted the commercial if the girl had been black/African-American (choose your preferred term)? It would have been spun as Republicans suggesting that all black women are dumb prostitutes. It was merely an attempt to connect him with Playboy parties that he'd attended. A low shot, perhaps, but not racist in the least.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Don't be naive. If the commercial had not occurred in the context of hundreds of years of racists hammering on fears of miscegenation, maybe, but nothing happens outside of a context.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> Don't be naive. If the commercial had not occurred in the context of hundreds of years of racists hammering on fears of miscegenation, maybe, but nothing happens outside of a context.


So, what race would you have chosen for the woman in the commercial so that it would not have been racist? Or is it not acceptable to make negative ads against Democratic black candidates?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Don't be naive. If the commercial had not occurred in the context of hundreds of years of racists hammering on fears of miscegenation, maybe, but nothing happens outside of a context.


Agreed. Using a white (and blond, no less) woman did play to those fears. Either way, it was a pathetic commercial on Corker's part. Gee, I'd go to a Playboy party if I was invited. Just don't paint all Republicans with the same broad brush though, Jack.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

The Wife said:


> What do I think*?* I hope that either the Honorable Rudolph Giuliani or Senator McCain will be the Republican presidential candidate in the year 2008. I like them because they are independent thinkers, and no, McCain and Giuliani are not "neo-cons". Hey, maybe a winning ticket would include the two of them. I don't believe there would be an "ego" problem.


Right now, McCain - Giuliani is my ticket. :icon_cheers:


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

There are other ways to make the same point, and still be forceful. Ford himself claimed not to see any racist tinge in the ad, but plenty of others did. Jack's miscegenation point is spot on in my opinion.

Funny how no one in the GOP could manage to remove the ad, despite several high-ranking individuals--including Chairman Mehlman, and Ford's opponent--wringing their hands and saying they /wished/ there was some way for them to remove the ad.

What Ford should have done is been totally up front: Yeah, I went to a Playboy sports party. I like women and football.

He could even have thrown a Foley joke in there. Just to be vicious. He didn't; I would.



hopkins_student said:


> So, what race would you have chosen for the woman in the commercial so that it would not have been racist? Or is it not acceptable to make negative ads against Democratic black candidates?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> He didn't say that. It's pretty clear that for any candidate there are a number of reasons to vote for the person and a number of reasons to vote against him or her. The point was that whatever reasons may lead some people to vote against Obama, race is an additional reason counting against him that does not count against the rest of the likely candidates.
> 
> The success of the racist campaign the RNC ran against Harold Ford demonstrates the likely effect of Obama's race on his chances.


Again though, a Dem candidate is only voted for (obviously) by Democrats or people willing to vote Democrat. This means the racism you are claiming, is by are large in the Democratic Party or those voters willing to vote to the left, hence placing all the racism on their part. I am sure that the original mention by Bertie was to play the race card on Repubs and the right, but guys, when you're claiming it is your candidate that will be affected by race, that definitionally means it is your voters you are calling racist.

Sad that. I think the Repubs would have turned out in droves at one point for Powell.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Again though, a Dem candidate is only voted for (obviously) by Democrats or people willing to vote Democrat. This means the racism you are claiming, is by are large in the Democratic Party or those voters willing to vote to the left, hence placing all the racism on their part. I am sure that the original mention by Bertie was to play the race card on Repubs and the right, but guys, when you're claiming it is your candidate that will be affected by race, that definitionally means it is your voters you are calling racist.
> 
> Sad that. I think the Repubs would have turned out in droves at one point for Powell.


I don't see your logic. In any campaign there are undecideds and independents.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> He didn't say that. It's pretty clear that for any candidate there are a number of reasons to vote for the person and a number of reasons to vote against him or her. The point was that whatever reasons may lead some people to vote against Obama, race is an additional reason counting against him that does not count against the rest of the likely candidates.


Yes but the question assumes that the predominant reason may be race.



> The success of the racist campaign the RNC ran against Harold Ford demonstrates the likely effect of Obama's race on his chances.


I hope you feel opponents of Lieberman posting a picture of him in black face and of NAACP members throwing oreo cookies at Michael Steele were just as racist.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> I don't see your logic.


Wow, that is surprising as all get out!



crs said:


> In any campaign there are undecideds and independents.


Yup. And also party faithfuls. No matter how you slice it, you have to get all three of those sub-classes to vote for your guy to get him elected, correct? Therefore, we are talking of the group of voters that will vote Democrat, still with me? Hence, if racism is a factor, the only racists that can affect the outcome are what? The Democrat Party faithful and those undecideds and independents that vote Democrat. Ergo, you are worried you have abunch of racists who votes you are trying to capture.

Clear?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Wow, that is surprising as all get out!
> 
> Yup. And also party faithfuls. No matter how you slice it, you have to get all three of those sub-classes to vote for your guy to get him elected, correct? Therefore, we are talking of the group of voters that will vote Democrat, still with me? Hence, if racism is a factor, the only racists that can affect the outcome are what? The Democrat Party faithful and those undecideds and independents that vote Democrat. Ergo, you are worried you have abunch of racists who votes you are trying to capture.
> 
> Clear?


Clearly wrong. It is the independents and undecideds who _don't_ vote Democrat who may or may not be voting for racist reasons. Those who vote Democrat voted for a black man. Those undecideds and independents who voted Republican are the more likely racists.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Clearly wrong. It is the independents and undecideds who _don't_ vote Democrat who may or may be voting for racist reasons. Those who vote Democrat voted for a black man. *Those undecideds and independents who voted Republican are the more likely racists.*


What a load of shyte. Vote Repub and you're a likely racist (as yes, policy stances could have nothing to do with it)? And I noticed you left Democrat party faithful out of your little racial analysis, as after all, no racists there, right? Clearly the conversation has devolved to the point where I shall find it necessary to withdraw as you have lost perspective.

Regards

Edit: Also, you should maybe do a little research and see exactly which racial groups and Parties are williing to vote across racial lines. You just might be surprised.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

That ad was pretty bad. I certainly never said everyone who voted Republican was a racist, but the Republican clearly got the votes of racist whites.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

crs said:


> That ad was pretty bad. I certainly never said everyone who voted Republican was a racist, but the Republican clearly got the votes of racist whites.


Isn't that their base?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Fogey said:


> Isn't that their base?


Again, trolling at new lows.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I hope you feel opponents of Lieberman posting a picture of him in black face and of NAACP members throwing oreo cookies at Michael Steele were just as racist.


I can't really tell what was going on with the blackface photo, but I would agree that anyone using blackface images is almost certainly engaging in racism or making some kind of racist appeal.

As for the Oreo incident, I would say that it would raise questions if, in fact, it had happened. On the other hand, there are serious reasons to doubt the veracity of the claims, including the fact that the Washington Times, a Republican organ, did not mention any Oreos in its original story on the debate at which this supposedly occurred, even though it did report on the debate and the partisan reaction of the crowd, and even though the claims are that it was "raining Oreos", and that cookies "were thick in the air like locusts". Here's a link for further discussion:

Assuming it did happen, it would at least raise questions. On the other hand, if what happened was that black members of the audience raised questions of Steele's authenticity as a black man because of his positions or party affiliation, the claim would be very different from the claims of the Republican Party that a black candidate for Senate was lusting after the flower of white female virtue. (Not to mention the fact that "The Republican National Committee was responsible" for the content of the commercial, not some unruly or hostile audience members.)

And to those who question whether this was a racist appeal, don't you agree that Ken Mehlman's claim that the RNC had no control over continuing to run the ad was pretty transparently disingenuous?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

crs said:


> That ad was pretty bad. I certainly never said everyone who voted Republican was a racist, but the Republican clearly got the votes of racist whites.


How is that clear; how do you know this?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Do some research....*

Here's a bit of interesting data on the state where I reside:



> Incumbency played a role in whether a contest was polarized or not: in the large majority (65%) of
> elections in which voting was not polarized, *the contests were not polarized because whites voted for
> minority incumbents.*


So by crossing racial lines, whites, not the minorities, reached out to stop racial polarization. However:



> In primary elections, *minority voters showed strong support for minority candidates of their own
> race/ethnicity* when given the opportunity to vote for such a candidate.


Note that it was the candidate's race/ethnicity, not political party or stances that got them the vote. Basically, this study found minorities vote based on race, if the candidate is of their race, not necessarily political belief.



> Hispanics have been elected from districts that are not majority Hispanic in composition - District 7
> (30% Hispanic voting age population) has consistently elected at least one Hispanic to represent it in the
> state legislature since 1996.....In addition, District 2, which is only 10% Hispanic in voting age
> population, elected an Hispanic representative in 2000.





> Black Representation An African American has consistently been elected to represent District 23 (which
> is 13% black in voting age population) in the state house since at least 1996. In 1996, this district also
> had an African American state senator.


So basically white people are willing to elect minorities.

This data is available at:

I am sure this will be unpalatable to some, but this is just one example. All voter data patterns I have seen, clearly shows whites are more likely to cross racial lines and also, more likely to cross party lines. Blacks and hispanics (except for Cubans) still vote overwhelmining straight ticket Dem. Food for thought, chow down.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> the claim would be very different from the claims of the Republican Party that a black candidate for Senate was *lusting after the flower of white female virtue.* (Not to mention the fact that "The Republican National Committee was responsible" for the content of the commercial, not some unruly or hostile audience members.)
> 
> And to those who question whether this was a racist appeal, don't you agree that Ken Mehlman's claim that the RNC had no control over continuing to run the ad was pretty transparently disingenuous?


You definitely read way too much into it. And I never heard Ken Mehlman say they couldn't pull it, I just heard him defend it.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

RUSSERT: Ken Mehlman, the Republican candidate in Tennessee has asked that you take that ad off the air, that it is over the top. Former Republican Senator William Cohen says it’s, quote, “overt racist appeal.”

Will you take that ad down? 

MEHLMAN: Tim, I don’t have the authority to take it down or put it up. It’s what called an independent expenditure.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

That's different from the answer I heard him give.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Here's a bit of interesting data on the state where I reside:
> 
> So by crossing racial lines, whites, not the minorities, reached out to stop racial polarization. However:
> 
> ...


That's nice, Wayfarer. But you can't equate Arizona with Tennessee, Arizona lacking Tennessee's history as part of the Confederacy and key role in the civil-rights movement. Also, a larger portion of Arizona's population consists of transplants with no roots in the state and region.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> That's nice, Wayfarer. But you can't equate Arizona with Tennessee, Arizona lacking Tennessee's history as part of the Confederacy and key role in the civil-rights movement. Also, a larger portion of Arizona's population consists of transplants with no roots in the state and region.


crs,

I had no doubt my data would in some way be discounted by you. Thanks for staying true to form. I would ask though, who stated this entire thread was a referendum on Tennessee? I missed that I guess.

Well, you claim to be the big time journalist, driven by the facts, just the facts. Do some research of your own on a national level. I would actually take the time, but you would just find a way to marginalize anything I present, as you have just clearly demonstrated.

And not one comment on whites voting across party and racial lines more than minorities? Wow, what a shocker.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> crs,
> I would ask though, who stated this entire thread was a referendum on Tennessee? I missed that I guess.


It didn't start that way, but it morphed into it. The racial thing was Tennessee-specific, though, until you tried to bring Arizona into it. I would think there would be huge variance depending on locale, so I don't think a national average would tell us anything about the situation in question.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> It didn't start that way, but it morphed into it. The racial thing was Tennessee-specific, though, until you tried to bring Arizona into it. I would think there would be huge variance depending on locale, so I don't think a national average would tell us anything about the situation in question.


No, Jack Mc made a sweeping statement about RNC racism. I did not "try" to bring Arizona in, I did. It seemed logical and pertinent data to me as I live here. Of course, just dismissing it all is much easier than actually doing some research on your own, is it not?


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

Note: this multiquote feature is neat.



Liberty Ship said:


> That he didn't step up and run against Hillary Clinton when he was needed. He might have been able to send her off to bake cookies. I think his excuse was prostate cancer. What finally happened with that?


Wow. I don't support RG. I find his public persona more than a little schmuck-y. I think he'd be a horrible president and would never consider voting for him to hold any office that includes any foreign policy portfolio because he would make us even more violently pro-Apartheid in Israel/Palestine than we currently are. But attacking a cancer survivor for putting his health above his party's political interests, blows don't come any lower than that.



Wayfarer said:


> It is just outrageous, to me anyways, that truly, his main appeal seems to be he is black, speaks well, and wears standard upper level business attire well.


Wayfarer, I call BS there. His race isn't an issue, let alone the issue. The fact that he's well-spoken - my hunch is that bwep meant "great orator" rather than "well-spoken" phrase in the common sense, but that's the phrase used so let's run with it - sets up a perfect contrast to the tongue-tied twit currently in the White House. Nobody says Bush talks like an idiot for an old WASP. We just say that we get red with embarrassment every time that idiot opens his mouth. Likewise, Obama is not well spoken "for a black person." He is a master of modern rhetoric. Full stop.

I personally don't think it a bad thing that after a failed regime that proved mediocrity begets horror, we're yearning for someone with some actual heft and intellect. Obama's the only such person to have stepped under center for either party so far, at least partly because no smart Republican wants to be the guy who has to clean up the droppings Bush left all over our country.

Also, I don't think "he wears the standard upper level business attire well." I think he's more gawky-looking than anything else. The only potential candidate on either side I think really "looks presidential" from a clothing-and-bearing point of view is Wes Clark.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

SGladwell said:


> Wayfarer, I call BS there. His race isn't an issue, let alone the issue.


Funny SG, it was the forum liberals that first brought up race as an issue for Obama. Heck, it is the forum liberals that are always bringing up race. I guess you had better get your foot soldiers in line there SG as right now, I am "calling BS there".


----------

