| Author |
Message |
    
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1239
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 3:24 pm: |     |
doug, you don't have to agree with him, but don't make the sweeping generalization that local R's are more moderate.
I definitely do not underestimate the Republicans to choose a winner. It just won't be a moderate. |
dougw
Citizen
Username: Dougw
Post Number: 686
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 3:31 pm: | |
I beleive I named several GOP's Governors in this thread that are more moderate. Sweeping generalizations - please... |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1240
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 3:38 pm: | |
Yes, sweeping generalizations. You have trouble with details. You "assumed" Obama was in the CBC because he was... black? He also needs to be in the House, you know. Of the 3 black Republicans elected to the House since the formation of the CBC, it is true that only one was invited to join.
The Republican party is an extreme, but effective, right-wing organization with a few dollops of moderation here and there. |
dougw
Citizen
Username: Dougw
Post Number: 687
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 4:02 pm: | |
I thought he was in the house - my mistake. He is black right? Is knowing that someone is black wrong? |
maplewood fan
Citizen
Username: Mplwfan
Post Number: 264
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 4:03 pm: | |
Reagan was the "leader of the Free World" for 8 years, Mondale was a defeated candidate in one election. Your point is...? |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1241
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 4:04 pm: | |
Naw. Just your eye for detail.
All bickering aside, who do you see as a legitimate R nominee? |
dougw
Citizen
Username: Dougw
Post Number: 688
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 4:10 pm: | |
You said "This while thousands of Americans were dying from the disease. " Mondale was the nominee for President of the United States from of one of the two largest parties. What did he propose to do about it? Remember thousands were dying...thousands.
Come on no one was sure at that time what was happening. It is clear from the data now but it was not clear then.
Reagan was a social moderate. He took no strong stand on abortion and hardly ever mentioned it in public. He was focused on the economy and destroying the evil empire. He did fantastic on both. |
dougw
Citizen
Username: Dougw
Post Number: 689
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 4:16 pm: | |
Dave23 - I am embarassed that I did not remember that he was a senator.
I don't have a good feel for who will be the GOP nominee. I do see that Pataki could do it. The iportant thing would be for him to play down the social issues. If he can run on economy (looks like we might have a good run the next few years) and security (who knows) then he could unite the party.
I think the interesting thing is the Hispanic (I hate that term) vote. This group has more votes than blacks, it is growing, and it splits its vote between the two parties. As they mature politally in the next 10 years they will change American politics. Also the black vote will become less important and will start to split between the two parties. I think this trend is more interesting than nominees for Prez. |
maplewood fan
Citizen
Username: Mplwfan
Post Number: 265
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 4:18 pm: | |
In 1984 I was an out young gay man and I knew that my friends were getting sick and some were dying. The gay community was telling you straight folks that this was an epidemic and because of the Red Cross and the CDC (see And the Band Played On), there was only silence. As far as Mondale and his not saying anything - he should have. As far as Reagan saying nothing - he should have. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1242
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 4:19 pm: | |
I think Pataki would be about as inspirirational to Reps as Kerry was to Dems. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2182
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 5:31 pm: | |
Absolutely. Pataki is about as exciting as watching grass grow. He could be the Mondale or even the Dukakkis of hte Republican party. Not in terms of his ability to win, but his ability to energize the electorate.
Don't get me wrong. I think he's a good governor for NY. He's just noring as hell. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1298
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 5:34 pm: | |
he was an awful governor for NY. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 508
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 7:09 pm: | |
I like this thread. A lot of nice civil talk about both parties. They are both a mess, which is why it really doesn't matter. Different parts of the country vote for a certain party or candidate based on the issues that region thinks is important. For my bible thumping brethren down here, the Republicans pretty much are voted for because of the values/morals issues. We'd like them to be better with the business side of government but we don't really have an alternative. I'm sure other parts of the country vote Republican for different reasons just like for the Democratic party. The key to victory is appealing to as many groups as a party can. With that said, the Repubs appeal to a broader base. The Dems will get back one day, but right now they are seen as the party of ACT UP and NOW which doesn't fly in most of America (I know it flies well in New Jersey and I have no problem with that. I hope you libs keep the banners and rhetoric flying because it keeps my side solidified). If you Dems only knew that with a few little changes in verbage and keeping your loonies quiet for a while, you could convince a lot of folks to vote for you. But, to my happiness, whenever I turn on the Nightly News, all red America sees are the loonies and I love this. |
crabby
Citizen
Username: Crabbyappleton
Post Number: 420
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 7:19 pm: | |
Yeah, there was civil talk until 7:09 when someone put the broken record back on. |
maplewood fan
Citizen
Username: Mplwfan
Post Number: 266
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 13, 2006 - 9:49 am: | |
Oh poor Southerner - still concerned about those crazy qu**rs in ACT UP! Honey, for your informaiton, ACT UP has not been and never was a force comparable to the National Rifle Association or for that matter the ACLU. You Red States don't have to worry about AIDS anymore because it's just those black folks in Africa who you don't really care about anyway (unless there is oil). |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 331
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 9:13 pm: | |
maplewood fan-
When did the republicans all the sudden become the racists? Skeptical of failing social programs and affirmative action while promoting personal responsibility is racist?
Failing social programs are impractical and just appeasing the problems minorities face. AA is unconstitutional (as per the 14th Amendment) and demeaning.
Did you forget 100 years of Democratic history or intentionally ignoring it? Do I need you to remind you how Blue the Southern states once were? Do I need to remind you who put up the biggest resistance toward civil rights/integration in the 1960s-70's? Do you want me to keep going?
"Black folks" only became important to Democrats when votes were needed-point blank. Once all the Southern Democrats saw their party sinking and jumped ship to the GOP, now all the sudden they are the racists.
Try again... |
maplewood fan
Citizen
Username: Mplwfan
Post Number: 267
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 14, 2006 - 11:09 pm: | |
Scrotty - I said Africa, didn't know they could vote in US elections? |
Starletta8
Supporter
Username: Starletta8
Post Number: 121
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 2:25 am: | |
Bob,
On the primary challenge to Specter- most people forget that Pennsylvania is mostly republican, aside from Pittsburgh and Philly. It was the combination of the "morals" voters pushing for a pro-lifer and that Specter was viewed as a "disappointment" to the Republican party as a whole because he was so moderate. They'd rather have a Santorum clone in that seat. Also, if I recall, there was a lot of support from within the party to unseat him- to get a more conservative Republican as Judiciary Chair. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 334
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 8:20 am: | |
Maplewood Fan-
Who you trying to kid-your implying that Republicans are racists...whatever... |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 4939
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 11:17 am: | |
SLK wrote above -Do I need to remind you who put up the biggest resistance toward civil rights/integration in the 1960s-70's? Do you want me to keep going?
"Black folks" only became important to Democrats when votes were needed-point blank. Once all the Southern Democrats saw their party sinking and jumped ship to the GOP, now all the sudden they are the racists. That's a very interesting piece of revisionist history, trying to separate the rise of the GOP in the South from opposition to the civil rights movement. Are there people out there who actually believe stuff like that?
The truth is different, though. Let's go to school.
First, here's what President Johnson said in a nationwide broadcast on July 2, 1964, as he signed the Civil Rights Act -
Quote:My fellow Americans:
I am about to sign into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I want to take this occasion to talk to you about what that law means to every American.
One hundred and eighty-eight years ago this week a small band of valiant men began a long struggle for freedom. They pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor not only to found a nation, but to forge an ideal of freedom--not only for political independence, but for personal liberty--not only to eliminate foreign rule, but to establish the rule of justice in the affairs of men.
That struggle was a turning point in our history. Today in far corners of distant continents, the ideals of those American patriots still shape the struggles of men who hunger for freedom.
This is a proud triumph. Yet those who founded our country knew that freedom would be secure only if each generation fought to renew and enlarge its meaning. From the minutemen at Concord to the soldiers in Viet-Nam, each generation has been equal to that trust.
Americans of every race and color have died in battle to protect our freedom. Americans of every race and color have worked to build a nation of widening opportunities. Now our generation of Americans has been called on to continue the unending search for justice within our own borders.
We believe that all men are created equal. Yet many are denied equal treatment.
We believe that all men have certain unalienable rights. Yet many Americans do not enjoy those rights.
We believe that all men are entitled to the blessings of liberty. Yet millions are being deprived of those blessings--not because of their own failures, but because of the color of their skin.
The reasons are deeply imbedded in history and tradition and the nature of man. We can understand--without rancor or hatred--how this all happened.
But it cannot continue. Our Constitution, the foundation of our Republic, forbids it. The principles of our freedom forbid it. Morality forbids it. And the law I will sign tonight forbids it.
That did no go over too well with a certain group of voters, who were Democrats at the time, but who then went over to the GOP. Strom Thurmond provided the classic example of how this happened - beginning just two months after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act -
Quote:On September 16, 1964, Thurmond switched his party affiliation, becoming a Republican in protest of the Democrats' support and President Johnson's shepherding of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thurmond played an important role in building Republican support in the South, which was overwhelmingly Democrat prior to the early 1960s. He campaigned on behalf of Richard Nixon to support the Republicans' Southern Strategy, undoubtedly bringing in Southern voters who otherwise would have voted for segregationalist candidate George Wallace in the 1968 election.
Nixon's strategy was successful, as we know.
Now, this is not to say that the GOP is the racist party, or anything like that. But, it is important to keep the facts straight regarding history. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 339
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 12:29 pm: | |
NoHero-
I do stand corrected but are we basically saying the same thing? Yes, some Dixicrats (NOT full Democrats) did jump ship to the GOP at the time...and? Does that make the entire GOP party racist?
Yes LBJ, a Democrat, signed the CRA 0f 1964 into law but that Act had to go through Congress first, correct? The GOP was just as on board as the Democrats were (well, at least the northern states for both), if not more.
I am just pointing out that everyone acts like the Democrats were god's gift to Black America while ignoring actual history. So, who is revising history here (not saying it is you)?
We had Thurmond, you have Byrd...showing that racists tendencies can exist on both sides...
|
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 4941
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 1:22 pm: | |
"... but are we basically saying the same thing?"
Basically, no. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 342
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 1:54 pm: | |
Nohero-
Is that the best you can do? Are you trying to deny the shady racial relationship the Democratic party had with blacks, even before 1964? Just because one Democrat signed the CRA-1964 into law doesn't erase these historical facts. The Democrats' stronghold was the Southern states for a majority of the 20th century... |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 4944
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 2:01 pm: | |
You're suggesting that the Democratic party is racist because southern segregationists were Democrats.
I pointed out that those folks left the Democratic party because of the Civil Rights Act.
So, following your logic, the party they switched to, is now the racist party.
As I said before, I was not refering to the GOP as the racist party.
However, you are basically arguing that the GOP is the racist party.
Suit yourself.  |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 344
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 2:11 pm: | |
I never argued that the either Democratic or GOP parties are racists, but will accept that there are racists in both parties.
I am commenting on this belief by the Democrats that they were always in the same corner with this country's African American population.
Historically, this is not true and you know it. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2498
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 5:52 pm: | |
"I am commenting on this belief by the Democrats that they were always in the same corner with this country's African American population."
No one believes that, but it was the leadership of the Democratic Party that pushed the Civil Rights Act. The Congressional Leadership of the Republican Party,(which was in the minority) particularly Everett Dirksen, supported it. But then the GOP went and nominated as its Presidential candidate a Senator who strongly opposed the Civil Rights Act. (Goldwater).
I don't know how Senator Richard Byrd of West Virginia voted (or for that matter, Harry Byrd of Virginia, who I think was still in the Senate) but he did not switch to the Republican Party because of that Law.
By the way I remember seeing Black delegates to the GOP 1964 convention harrassed on the convention floor. At the Dem Convention the same year I believe there was a big fight over seating an integrated delegation from Missippi as opposed to an all-white delegation and the result was somewhat favorable to the integrated delegation. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page