Or maybe Philadelphia. Not only are there Philistines, but probably an Oracle too.
<Simpsons joke about Homer reading Uruguay as U R Gay here>
I get this. 
Well, Fred Karger (who, as was mentioned earlier, is misspelled on the poll), is a gay rights advocate.
So she is a typical Republican.
She could win. The righties are backing anybody who can win. They are an unprincipled lot who will back anyone that can get them a seat. O’Donnell is not on the list. Why not? A Palin /O’Donnell ticket would be the best pairing possible.
A moderate Repub is an endangered species. The party turns against anyone who would govern for all the people.
I could stomach Bloomberg, which is probably why he didn’t make your list. Honest to god, that list makes me feel physically ill.
Agreed. She’s pro-choice though, which would alienate the base.
So you’d discriminate voting for someone due to their position on a scientific theory? Yes I endorse the theory of evolution but its a secondary issue to me when voting for a President of the United States. For that matter Andrew Jackson thought the Earth to be flat.
She’d still win a few Southern states along with Utah and Alaska so it won’t be a Reagan v. Mondale redux unless Obama’s next two years are far more succesful (ie unemployment rates go down massively, great victories in Afghanistan).
I chose Pataki, because I know what I’m getting – conservative, but not a fanatic. He’d never get within dreaming distance of the nomination, though.
Huckabee seems reasonable, even with his weirder beliefs; he seemed to think the shouldn’t be forcing fundamentalism on people, which is good. I’d like Romney, but he’s too easily brainwashed by his consultants.
I liked Condi and Petraeus. But if we’re going for “Vs. Obama (for him to win)”, I’d go with Palin. And if the nation actually did elect her. Well it’d serve them right.
No, it’s not about a scientific theory, it’s about an understanding of reality. IMO to reject the concept of evolution is to reject the very principles that underlie science itself.
So is thinking the Earth is flat but that had absolutely no effect on Andrew Jackson’s presidency. And I’m not certain but Reagan may have not believed in evolution too.
Also rather ironically:
Reagan was a terrible president. And so was Andrew Jackson.
People who don’t understand the nature of the world make terrible leaders.
Was it because they rejected that evolution is true and that the Earth is flat or because of their policies?
It’s a **Curtis **poll. I don’t take it seriously.
It was because they didn’t understand the nature of the world around them that they made bad policy.
Post reported.
Well what about those who do understand the world around them but make bad policy or vice versa?
I was hoping somebody would.
It’s more like I would disturbed by their intellectual deficiency. A lack of critical thinking ability is not something I want in a President.
Remember when independents and liberal Republicans used to cream their pants over John McCain? The polarizing nature of politics being what it is, I’m sure that a lot of left-leaning people would end up hating Powell by the time the campaign season was over.
(He’s probably smart enough to know that and may very not want to be mixed up in that crap).