Why has every poster assumed that the first non-White President will be Black? Note that Alberto Fujimori was elected President of Peru several years ago.
Maybe, but then I think you’re being unduly pessimistic and jaded.
I’m on the ground here in the deep South, and my sense of public opinion in these parts (even among my misguided right-wing friends) is that Powell would have been a hugely popular choice.
The poll numbers bear this out, and I seriously doubt anyone listed Colin Powell as a preference because “they thought that’s what the pollster wanted to hear.” Colin Powell is simply a very popular politician, regardless of his skin tone.
Granted, but again, those polled knew that he was a black man, and that didn’t stop them from supporting him.
I maintain that if Powell had run, he would be President today.
I’ve ALWAYS wished it would be Dick Greogry, whom I voted for (write-in) from 1984-1996.
Very Intresting OP. I don’t agree with amarinth’s beleif that it wil be a white/hispanic male,butI agree probably in the next 20-40 years mainly after the Gen-X’ers are pushing 50 and up. I think the main thing is that race is starting to play a lesser “card” than it did 20 or even 10years ago,and the political game is starting to be more about the issues. So if you have a minority who has the people behind him as fa as issues are concerned and he’s running aginst Joe Quimby (The mayor on the Simpsons that is representave of the “Kennedys”) you bet the minory will win,regardless of race.
I think for those of us who are more politically liberal, we should probably not be hoping for a minority president.
Why is that, you ask? Well, if there is, say, a black president in the near future, he would probably have to be fairly conservative. There’s no way a liberal black man (or woman, especially) can get to be present. To get a wide segment of the vote he’d have to be either a right-leaning Democrat, or a Republican.
As an example, witness Joe Liebermann. Would he be such a strong political player if he was non-religious, and thought Hollywood should do whatever they want to?
Really, at the moment, the only Democrat that could win the presidency is a white southerner.
So if you want to promote the most liberal adgenda possible, you should really only encourage white southerners to run for president.
Non-white = Colin Powell
I second that. The more I hear about Ms. Rice, the more I like her. Although I haven’t heard too much about her stands on domestic issues. Powell might have done it, but he’s made it pretty clear he’s not going to do it. Actually, non-white can also mean hispanic, so possibly our first “non-white” president may be a “white-looking” hispanic like Bill Richardson.
Well…I think the first minority president might well be the first minority vice-president. IMHO we still have a ways to go before there’s anyone but a white male in office, and that we will see a female (and/)or minority VP first, which would be the final thing to pave the way for a president who is either.
Good points, but I’m still pretty liberal and I still hope for a black president. Not just any black president. I wouldn’t vote for Jesse Jackson. Colin Powell, probably. I think he’s a good, intelligent, responsible person.
I hope for a black president because I think it’s what would help the US the most at this time. It’s the Presidency; no matter how little I respect the office, it is still a powerful symbol of authority and success. I believe the black community needs this, and that the white community needs to see it too. When the country finally evolves enough to accept a black president, we can start thinking about evolving enough to accept a more liberal government. (That’s not meant to be inflammatory, it’s just what I would like to see.)
If it were to happen in the reverse order, that would be okay too, I suppose.
Colin Powell will never be president because Colin Powell doesn’t want to be president. He could have won any of the last three elections walking away if he had wanted to; he chose not to run.
Michael Powell? I had not heard of him before I read Vix’s article from the Village Voice. What I read gave me personally mixed feelings; I love his hands-off approach to the FCC, but I did not like his anti-competitive feelings on issuing radio licenses. But it hardly matters what I think, because most of the American public hasn’t the foggiest idea who he is, and I don’t think a man with zero experience in the military, zero experience running for elective office, and zero experience in the Cabinet is going to get nominated. Maybe in ten years, he could be a contender.
I would still put J.C. Watts’ chances ahead of Michael Powell’s. He’s got plenty of experience campaigning and enjoys broad-based support with the Republicans. The question is, is an NRA member electable, when the media has convinced the swing voters that NRA members shoot children for fun? A Watts win in '04 requires 1) that Bush screw up so badly that he refuses to run again (LBJ-in-'68 levels of unpopularity), and 2) the Democrats go insane and nominate Gore again, or a Ted Kennedy type liberal. Not a likely occurrence, but likelier than a change in heart by Colin Powell, much less a Keyes or Michael Powell victory.
Do the Democrats really have no likely nonwhite presidential winners? Don’t tell me Jesse Jackson; he can’t get his own party to support him, much less the country. I’ve seen no sign that Daniel Inouye, Kweisi Mfume or John Conyers are interested in the presidency, much less that they could win if they ran. I really find it ironic that the Democrats, the party that prides itself on representing the oppressed races, appears to have fewer nonwhite contenders than the Republicans.
I think the “no liberal minority president” concern stems more from the kind of sociological and political damage the conservative rabble-rousers can reap from such a candidate. I shudder to think of the viritol someone like Rush Limbaugh would throw at (say) a hispanic or black presidential candidate from the Democratic party – it’d make the right-wing’s response during the Clinton years look like a love-in by comparison.
Acco40:
I can tell you for sure that if, in the next 30 years, we have a “non-white male prez” who is a “she,” then all sorts of precedents will have been set.
This statement seems to be implying that RL is a vicious racist. Seems unfair, since his right hand man on radio for several years was black and since he sometimes selects Walter Williams to sit in for him.
rjung, do you have evidence that RL is harsher on black and hispanic liberals than on white ones? Maybe your allegation is based on your prejudice – that is, prejudice against RL or against conservatives in general.
Fiver:
What I assumed is that there is no way a female minority will be voted into office in the next 30 years. Condelleza Rice or not. It is my opinion that the country is not ready for it.
Personally, I would not consider the race or sex of a candidate as a valid measure of ability, but I’m afraid many Americans do.
I recommend reading The Way Things Aren’t: Rush Limbaugh’s Reign of Error, which includes an entire chapter devoted to RL’s racist, sexist, and homophobic comments (most of which were aired), in addition to simply debunking the sheer volume of nonsense the guy has put forth. Parts of the book has been excerpted here.
If you’d rather cut to the heart of the matter, here are some Limbaugh quotes to chew on:
[ul]
[li]“The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.”[/li][li]“If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people – I’m serious, let the unskilled jobs, let the kinds of jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do – let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work.”[/li][li]“Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”[/li][li]Rush referred to the father of Madonna’s first child, a Latino, as “a gang-member type guy” – even though he had no gang background.[/li][li]"[Blacks] are 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?"[/li][li]Speculating on why a Mexican national won the New York marathon: “An immigration agent chased him for the last 10 miles.”[/li][li]“When a gay person turns his back on you, it is anything but an insult; it’s an invitation.”[/li][/ul]
Real enlightened guy, that Rush. With an attitude like this, I’m sure Rush will be even-handed and fair to black and hispanic liberals – after all, it’s not like the man is a racist or anything… :rolleyes:
Acco40, I was just picking on you, and you missed it. You said “non-white male prez” but also “he or she” in the same sentence.
rjung, I repeat, do you have any evidence that RL is harsher on Black than on white liberals? Do you know the context in which the quotes you gave were made? I assume they are accurate, but have they been confirmed?
The reason I’m so insistent is that I have listened to RL quite a bit over the last 4 or 5 years and have never heard him make these kinds of comments. It may be that he changed his style before I became a listener, or it may be that the book you cited was unfair in some some way.
Also, rjung, I don’t think most of the statements you quote indicate racism. Except the second, which may have been a slip of the tongue, and possibly the fourth and fifth, which depend heavily on context. In any event, anyone who speaks for 20 or so hours a week for 15 years will have said some objectionable statements during that time.
Fiver, I think Acco40 meant “non-white male” to mean someone who is not a white male, a category that includes women.
Since there is no objective measure of “harsher,” this question cannot be empirically answered. On the other hand, given Limbaugh’s history of bashing liberal presidents and bashing minorities, I feel very confident that a liberal minority president would double his opportunities.
Every single quote has been confirmed and annotated from Rush’s own books, radio shows, television appearances, or what-have-you. I’d give cites, but my copy of The Way Things Aren’t is currently boxed up, due to an impending move. For now, I can only refer you to FAIR’s archives and let you poke around a bit – a search on “Limbaugh” is enough.
Rush was given a publicized opportunity to respond to FAIR’s charges; his non-response (and distortion of FAIR’s reporting) are also available on the web site.
If he’s not racist, he does a good imitation of one. Remember that I only repeated a few quotes; there are more examples documented in the book and the web site.
Again, the bottom line is that IMO a liberal minority president (or candidate) will draw out the conservative nutballs and right-wing radicals like moths to a phosphorescent flare.
Fair response, rjung. Three points:
-
It’s easy to make someone out to be a racist (or a moron, for that matter) by pulling quotes out of context or by focusing on selected lar statements. E.g., Senator Byrd used the “N-word” in a TV interview recently, and no other Democrat criticized him for it, which “proves” that Democrats are racists.
-
FAIR and other RL critics are partisans (as is RL). Their interest is to make him look bad.
-
Have you considered listening to RL yourself and making your own evaluation of whether he’s a racist?