You are wrong, of course. Karl Rove works for your side in the excessively partisan battles in which you engage.
Incidentally, why exactly does Condi have such a great reputation? During her tenure as National Security Advisor, the US slept on intelligence that Al Qaeda was planning an attack and started a war over nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. Was she in any way responsible for anything that wasn’t actually a colossal fuck up?
Of course he can. And if you challenge him on the point, he’ll find some obscure leftie blog that did say those things ten years ago and claim that’s proof that “the left” is racist.
And if you point out how many racist signs and t-shirts are visible at a Tea Party rally, he’ll turn around and tell you all those racists don’t represent the movement as a whole.
"On the day the World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice reportedly was set to declare that the biggest threat to America was long-range missiles, not terrorism.
"In a speech that was never delivered, Rice failed even to mention Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, former U.S. officials told The Washington Post.
“News of the scrapped speech appears to bolster charges by former counterterrorism boss Richard Clarke that the White House downgraded the importance of terrorism before Sept. 11, 2001, and was more interested in Iraq and the agenda of the previous Bush administration.”
It’s not hypothetical; it’s right there. If she’s a lesbian (there is no evidence of this) and the GOP hated lesbians, then why would she be as popular a choice for VP?
No, I’m not. Rice has already been characterized as a house nigger and an Aunt Jemina and all the rest of it. I know you like to pretend that reality is other than you like, especially on matters of race, but that doesn’t change anything.
Rice is a non-Democratic black; therefore, to the left she is a nigger.
Regards,
Shodan
You left off the “s”
Well, in fairness, they didn’t really know what they were getting with Sarah Palin. She turned out to be a whole lot more interesting than they really wanted.
I really wanted to like Palin, I admit, until she started talking and that rapidly became impossible.
Only Republicans who think being seen as anti-gay is a bad thing, though. I don’t think that’s a majority, let alone enough to get a candidate nominated.
The lack of candidates is also a problem. Openly gay politicians are becoming more prominent, but they need to work their way up the ladder. It may take a while for an openly gay candidate to get to a position of enough prominence to really get into this discussion, and by then even more people will find themselves comfortable with the idea.
What makes you think she is popular as a choice for VP? This is just an idea pundits and messageboarders are batting around.
Do you understand what I mean by “beard”?
Do you want to qualify “the left” a little more? If not–if we go by your usual all-pervasive ideas about the left–then I invite you to show her being called such a name by:
The Washington Post
The New York Times
Any federally-elected Democrat
CNN
MSNBC
Anyone else who may remotely be characterized as a member of the mainstream left.
If instead you’d like to qualify your “the left” to mean “the lunatic hateful fringe of the left,” then I’ll concede the point and suggest that such qualifications would better appear in the original claim.
Condoleezza Rice is a non-Democratic sblack?
I don’t see how reminding people of George W. Bush helps a Republican win an election. They’ve been spending the last 4 years pretending that George bush wasn’t REALLY a Republican.
Hell, they’ve spent the last 4 years pretending George W. Bush wasn’t REALLY president…
Is there a single policy issue on which Mitt Romney diverges from GWB? Maybe immigration reform? Although it doesn’t even really seem like he’s fully committed to his anti-immigration stance (Which, why would he be? Cheap labor!).
First, he would have to admit the left includes anything else. I don’t know if that’s emotionally possible for Shodan.
Yeah, wasn’t he really a Whig or something?
Still, he called her a lesbian. Which isn’t really an insult, but also doesn’t have any basis in fact, either. He clarified some in his next post, but it’s still a little disappointing to see “She’s a lesbian.” as the first sentence to the first reply in the thread.
Granted. Whatever her personal life is like, her connections to Bush are enough to keep her from getting nominated and I see no reason to think Romney would even consider her because I don’t think she addresses any areas he needs to shore up. I also don’t think she’s interested. This is just idle speculation by Juan Williams.
It’s discouraging that he’d jump to that, though. There’s no evidence that she is one other than the assumption that so often is made that a woman in a position of power, especially an unmarried one, is a lesbian.