[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]
Then you’re just as ignorant as someone who wouldn’t vote for Obama because he’s not a Democrat.
[/QUOTE]
Last I checked, Obama was a Democrat.
Please, convince me that I should vote for any of the Republican hopefuls.
[QUOTE=rjung]
I’ve learned to never underestimate the stupidity of Republicans. Not that Democrats or Libertarians are geniuses by default, but Republicans tend to reach levels of clueless imbecility that leave the others behind.
[/QUOTE]
Given that there has been a Republican President the last 20 of 28 years, I’d say that the genius leaders of the Democrat party had better get their shit together before the next election.
Well, I’m not sure what they’re going to do. It seems like if they’ve been around less than 5 years, they’re inexperienced, and if they’ve been around more than five years, they’re corrupt and entrenched.
History shows that you can’t be elected if you’re inexperienced, like Obama, or corrupt, like Hillary, or you come from the senate, like McCain, or you’ve never governed a state, like Giuliani.
It looks like we’ll have to elect nobody this time around.
[QUOTE=Bridget Burke]
Last I checked, Obama was a Democrat.
Please, convince me that I should vote for any of the Republican hopefuls.
[/QUOTE]
Check the next post after the one you quoted. I mistyped and admitted as much.
I would be more likely to try to convince you to vote Libertarian than Republican. However, if the idea of being a straight party voter appeals to you, then go ahead with your bad self.
[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]
if the idea of being a straight party voter appeals to you, then go ahead with your bad self.
[/QUOTE]
When I was growing up, there was a great deal of (a) overlap, and (b) cooperation, between the two parties. You had liberal Republicans like Sens. Jacob Javits and Mark Hatfield, and you had conservative Democrats like Sens. John Stennis and James Eastland, not to mention Strom Thurmond before his 1964 party switch.
Now, OTOH, the two major parties are the most sharply delineated from one another that they have been in my life. Is there a Congressional Republican today that’s to the left of any Senate Democrat (not counting Lieberman as a Dem, since he’s not)?
For members of the two major parties, it only takes the most cursory consideration of the other major party’s candidate in a House or Senate race to be aware that the obvious gaping philosophical differences between the two parties apply to that particular race as well.
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
You’re joking, right? Both Gore and Kerry were intelligent and experienced candidates who would have made capable leaders. But both had the personality of wallpaper
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t this a contradiction? A leader needs a personality more definite than wallpaper.
Hmmm… I wonder if Americans looked at Gore and Kerry and subconsciously remembered John Major? Or Carter. Both were intelligent and had plenty of experience, but were utter failures as leaders of their parties.
[QUOTE=PunditLisa]
Given that there has been a Republican President the last 20 of 28 years, I’d say that the genius leaders of the Democrat party had better get their shit together before the next election.
[/QUOTE]
No disagreement here. I continue to bemoan the fact that the leadership of the Democratic Party still seem to be bringing an epee for a shootout at the political corral.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
This is an inaccurate characterization of my post, even the first one in the thread. I expect better from you, and usually find it.
[/quote]
Why is that inaccurate? Here’s what you posted about Obama originally:
Now, how are we supposed to know why you called him a “Halfrican-Hamerican”? It’s a “loaded term” because it obviously refers to his race, but we don’t know why you think that’s important and why you seem to be making fun of the fact that he’s bi-racial. Had you said that one of his main qualifications seems to be his race, then we’d all have know what you meant.
“Hamerican”= son of Ham, living in a America
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
When I was growing up, there was a great deal of (a) overlap, and (b) cooperation, between the two parties. You had liberal Republicans like Sens. Jacob Javits and Mark Hatfield, and you had conservative Democrats like Sens. John Stennis and James Eastland, not to mention Strom Thurmond before his 1964 party switch.
Now, OTOH, the two major parties are the most sharply delineated from one another that they have been in my life. Is there a Congressional Republican today that’s to the left of any Senate Democrat (not counting Lieberman as a Dem, since he’s not)?
For members of the two major parties, it only takes the most cursory consideration of the other major party’s candidate in a House or Senate race to be aware that the obvious gaping philosophical differences between the two parties apply to that particular race as well.
[/QUOTE]
Hmmm. You bemoan the lack of overlap between the parties, yet vilify Lieberman. And yet you don’t seem to see any irony there.
If the parties don’t get along, it is in no small part due to Democrats like you, friend.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Hmmm. You bemoan the lack of overlap between the parties, yet vilify Lieberman. And yet you don’t seem to see any irony there.
[/quote]
Firstly, i’m not sure that he’s bemoaning the lack of overlap between the parties; as far as i can see, he’s merely commenting on it, at least in the post you quote.
Second, i’m not sure he’s vilifying Lieberman either. The sum total of his comment about Lieberman was that he’s not a Democrat. Now, one might make an argument that Lieberman, who refers to himself nowadays as an Independent Democrat, and who caucuses with the Democrats, is indeed a Democrat.
But the fact is that his most recent Senate campaign was as an Independent, and was run in opposition to the Democratic Party’s chosen candidate. I think that’s reasonable grounds for asserting that he’s not a Democrat in the true sense of the word.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
If the parties don’t get along, it is in no small part due to Democrats like you, friend.
[/QUOTE]
Well, not speak for RTF, but i’ve never been especially enamored of the idea that the two major parties need to “get along.” In fact, one might argue that when the two parties are “getting along” the best, that’s often when the American people are getting screwed the worst.
I’m not arguing for mindless and gratuitous slagging matches, but i think that one of the duties of the minority party is to be critical, to keep the ruling party honest by subjecting its policies and activities to close and constant scrutiny, and not to pull any punches in drawing attention to deficiencies and inconsistencies. If one party if fucking over our liberties, the other party should be yelling and screaming about it.
Too often, it seems to me, the call for “getting along” doesn’t come from a genuine wish for amity and conciliation. Rather, it’s often code for “your party should agree to everything my party does.”
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Hmmm. You bemoan the lack of overlap between the parties, yet vilify Lieberman. And yet you don’t seem to see any irony there.
If the parties don’t get along, it is in no small part due to Democrats like you, friend.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly so, Mr. Moto!
Call me anachronistic, but I lay the blame for this “sharp delineation” between the parties–and the animus between conservatives and liberals in general–firmly at the feet of post late-sixties liberalism in this country. Beginning at that time, anyone who dared to posit a difference between men and women in any way was reviled as sexist; anyone voicing the slightest skepticism about school bussing or affirmative action was reviled as racist; anyone who questioned any aspect of homosexuality was reviled as a homophobe…etc., etc., ad nauseum. And it still goes on today. Witness the derailment, revulsion and name-calling and that was visited upon Shodan for his use of the term ‘Halfrican H(A)merican’ in this thread, a term that really hasn’t even been established as derogotory in the first place.
Then, of course, human beings being what they are, the conservative part of the spectrum finally began to respond in kind (thanks primarily to Rush Limbaugh, the first national figure to provide conservatives with a rallying point), and now we have what we have now, which is basically a culture war in which each side feels so much contempt and hatred for the other that everything essentially boils down to whoever is in charge gets his way. There is no dialog, no compromise, no voice of reason.
So it’s true that these days there is such a sharp delineation between Democrats and Republicans that one is almost forced to vote the party line just to keep the dipshits on the other side from getting their way and ruining everything. 
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
I lay the blame…firmly at the feet of post late-sixties liberalism in this country.
[/QUOTE]
Stop the presses! Starving Artist reiterates his platform, again, on the SDMB!
[QUOTE=mhendo]
Jesus, i always suspected you might be Rush Limbaugh, but i never thought that you were the bastard offspring of Limbaugh, Coulter, and Murdoch.
“Halfrican-Hamerican” is lower that i thought even you could go.
[/QUOTE]
He doesn’t have to be Rush Limbaugh. He’s just repeating someone else’s bad jokes. What do you think “dittohead” means?
As for Giuliani leading in the polls, :rolleyes: . That’s just name recognition, & we’re still way way out there. The swing voters might choose him, but it’s a tough road through the GOP primaries to get to the general. Believe it or not, being an egomaniacal, high-strung, vindictive ass is not looked on kindly on the Right, & being such an ass while being a NY Republican (urban, pro-choice, gun control, law & order, not a Libertarian in “God & Country” drag) will make him seem a “RINO idiot” to many.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Yeah, but there’s a rather enormous difference between overlooking ‘mistakes’ like fucking up the world, and overlooking ‘mistakes’ like extramarital sex.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry, where in the Ten Commandments does it say, “Thou shalt not fuck up the world”? On the contrary, Jesus himself said, “I bring not peace but a sword.” 
[QUOTE=Hogwash]
You’re all overlooking the most important issue - who, of those likely to run in 2008, is the most huggable?
[/QUOTE]
!!! Bill Richardson!!!
Hey, Wolfian agreed with me!
[QUOTE=Montgomery0]
I think you guys are missing the main issue about 2008. It’s going to be a woman or a black man vs a white man. That is what it will boil down to, no matter what people say. It’s not about who’s huggable, or who has the best grasp on the issues or who seems more charismatic. This is America after all, the Republicans are going to have to screw up REAL bad, I would say even more than they are now, to elect a non white man to the presidency.
[/QUOTE]
Well, in the first place, it’s not foregone that Hillary or Obama get the nom. It could be a Latino (or is that Hlaftino?) man versus a white man.
And really, not even Liddy Dole or Christie Whitman on the GOP side? And GOP supporters who say women shouldn’t even have the vote? What does that say about the party?
As for, “This is America after all,” I think a lot of our problems are exacerbated by assuming that all of America is like our particular bit. Can any candidate who’s not a white man from southerly latitudes (Nixon & Reagan were Californian) win in the country as it is today? Or are Northerners willing to vote for Southerners while Southerners boycott all Yankees? If the latter, never mind the Presidency, the Union is not working anymore.
But I digress.
A lot of younger voters will vote for someone different because they’re different. Also, there’s a lot of war fatigue, & Bush fatigue. It’ll be interesting to see how far the non-standard candidate (which amounts to, not a Sheriff Andy Taylor clone) can get. If it gets the idea in the national consciousness that a little melanin or estrogen can be Presidential, it’s worth a shot.
[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
… Hlaftino?
[/QUOTE]
awesome.
[QUOTE=Key Lime Guy]
awesome.
[/QUOTE]
Oh man, don’t say that, they’ll pit us like they did Shodan.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Oh…I forgot! Being the governor of Texas is a largely ceremonial position…unless Ann Richards happens to be governor.
[/QUOTE]
No, it’s a real position. The problem is that W was a slacker while in it, & got a pass by people who looked at the position rather than the performance.
Yes, I know it’s a real position. Friend elucidator, I believe, was the one who originally used the phrase ‘ceremonial position’ in an attempt to keep Bush from getting any credit for being the two-time governor of one of the nation’s largest states.
But it’s interesting to note that Bush even managed to ‘slack’ himself into a second term as Texas governor…voted in that second time no doubt by people who looked again at the position and not the performance (whatever that means).