The Politics Thread

[ReddFoxx]

Sorry, it is racist, it pushes the notion that many people have about people of color in high positions, the one that asserts that they didn't get there on merit, but only on race. He ran a better campaign in 2008, I was a Hillary supporter, but I have to say he ran a better campaign in the primary as well. And in the general, his opposition was weak and he ran circles around it. That's why he won, he worked for it.

And I don't recall Sarah Palin ever giving a good speech.

[quartermainefan]

I don't care if 400 people march into this thread and mistakenly think my post was racist, it still doesn't make it so. Acknowledging race and admitting it is there doesn't make one a racist any more than if I said Geraldine Ferraro became the VP nominee for Walter Mondale not because of her merits, but because she was a woman. Now you can come and say I am sexist too if you like, but it won't make it so. Sarah Palin was picked because she was a woman, Hillary Clinton became senator because she was Bill's wife and had she not been so she never would have even been even a potential nominee. GWB became governor of Texas because he was George Bush's son. Now why don't you say I am anti-sons next?

I don't care if many people have this notion or that notion, I only care about whether I am racist or whether the fine people at son.com want to read my post and redefine what racism is so they label me with that word.

[Max]

Qfan is most definately NOT a racist. I really commend him for bravely going against the popular opinion here.

I also believe that race played a role in Obama getting where he was. How many white males would be considered serious contenders for the presidency after launching a campaign two short years upon becoming senator? In such a politically correct world, these things are not popular to say, but such unpopularity doesn't make such statements false. (If Obama wanted to, he could have put his country over his own ambitions by waiting until he accumulated more time in the Senate. He didn't do that because he knows an important truth in politics: the longer you are in Congress, the more unelectable you become, since opponents can cherry-pick your voting record and distort things.)

Aside from the push that electing Obama would be "making history," there were--of course--other reasons that led to his becoming president. There's no doubt that he ran a brilliant campaign (which wasn't saddled with the huge baggage that Sharpton or Jackson had), whereby he gave lofty speeches about "hope and change" and was consequently able to dupe millions into voting for him. The other major factor that led to his nomination (which in 2008 was tantamount to victory in the general election) was that the far-left had a conniption fit over the fact that Hillary voted for "Bush's War," and were unable to forgive her for that "sin." (Almost nobody knew who Obama was at the time of the war vote, so it was neither a risky nor unpopular thing to come out against the war in Chicago Democratic circles; nevertheless, his supporters praised him for his "courage" in doing this once he ran for president.) Thus, race, slick and misleading rhetoric, and anti-war sentiment all combined to elevate a dangerously unqualified man to the White House. (And the stock market crash in September 2008 ensured a McCain defeat, so--like I indicated earlier--all the critical action in 2008 occurred in the primary.)

Edited June 11, 2012 by Max

[DRW50]

John Edwards. He didn't get the nomination, but he was seen as a serious contender. I guess you could say it was five years, not two, but it was still first term, and he had less of a political background than Obama.

Edited June 11, 2012 by CarlD2

[Max]

Edwards did spend more time as Senator, as you indicated. But, I also agree with you that it was outrageous that Edwards was considered such a serious contender.

Thankfully, Edwards did very poorly, and not just in 2008. I don't think that most people know this, but Edwards only won one primary in 2004: the SC primary. He was hyped up endlessly by the media, but his huge lack of experience (I believe) resulted in him getting so few delegates; in Obama's case, he got the nomination.

Race--in ways that were both negative and positive for Obama--played a big role in many Democratic primaries. For those who doubt this, consider that Obama lost in states like PA, OH, and WV, where a lot of small-town Americans "cling to their guns and bibles." Conversely, Obama won landslide victories in states where African Americans made up a huge percentage of the Democratic primary electorate: VA, NC, SC, GA, AL, and MS. (Like I said earier, race was not the only reason for Obama's victory. For instance, the fact that moderates tend to abstain from caucuses really helped Obama pull of wins in lily-white states that had caucuses.) On the whole, I certainly feel that race helped Obama more than it hurt him.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Max

[Roman]

Qfan, what is wrong with people disagreeing with your opinion?

Personally I do think it is racist. It makes it seem like all black Americans are so stupid they vote for the black man/woman over anyone else without researching that person. I think it's highly offensive, but its your opinion.

[ReddFoxx]

Why was it even necessary to bring race into the equation? It's a racist assertion that Obama elected because he's black and it's a very faulty one too, since most of the votes he got had nothing to do with race. Again, why was race even brought up?

Edited June 11, 2012 by ReddFoxx

[quartermainefan]

It was brought up when someone said Bill Clinton cost Hillary the election. Recalling what happened with Bill Clinton during that race and the accusations leveled against him by many, race was therefore on topic.

[Roman]

So you think black Americans are so stupid we just vote for anyone who is black, right?

[DRW50]

Tonight is the special election for Gabby Giffords' seat in Congress. The Democrat, Ron Barber, is poised to win (in spite of a poor campaign), but that's just on polling, and polling House districts is difficult.

Meanwhile, gun violence has returned to ads.

http://2012.talkingp...s-campaigns.php

Mitt Romney won't say whether he will go after cops, firefighters, and teachers if elected. I take that to mean, "Yes."

http://www.kvor.com/...itemid=29862136

He actually has a long history against firefighters.

http://www.alternet....n_firefighters/

Remember how our liberal media friends told us that Romney was a very, very special moderate, and he was just pretending as long as he was in primary mode? He is, if anything, even more far right now, and our liberal media friends love every minute of it.

Edited June 12, 2012 by CarlD2

[quartermainefan]

Perhaps you would like to assign me a whole host of opinions and then you can engage in a full throttle debate? It doesn't seem like you need me at all in this topic to find ever new ways to be outraged.

[Roman]

And thank you for not only not answering my question, but proving my point.

[quartermainefan]

You have no point. I didn't answer your question because not only was it ridiculous on its face, but to answer it would imply that somehow it pertained to me and anything I said. Since it did not and was strictly a construct of your need to take umbrage, why would I waste my time going down that path? As soon as I answered your first question you would come back with some equally outlandish position, pretend I said it, and then demand to know my position on it.

Let me be clear in case this all somehow was too byzantine for you: I am not a racist and anyone who claims I am can [!@#$%^&*] off.

[Roman]

Thank you for giving me my laugh for the day. With this post I now leave you alone to wallow in your bigotry. Have a great day.

[Roman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/arizona-special-election-results-2012_n_1591787.html

Can you imagine what the Liberal media would have said if a Republican had won this seat?