Log in

View Full Version : McCain's choice - interesting turnabout



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

sapphiregirl
09-02-2008, 12:47 AM
A few dozen threads back, I raised question on how much experience is enough, but didn't provide any answers, or opinions. Listed below is a quick summary of significant elected, or appointed posts held by 9 elected VP's of the United States since 1953.

Richard Nixon- 4yrs US Representative, 2 yrs US Senator

Lyndon Johnson- 12 yrs US Representative, 12 yrs. US Senator, including 2 yrs as Minority Leader, 6 yrs. as Majority Leader

Hubert Humphrey- 3.5 yrs Minneapolis Mayor, 15 yrs US Senator ( he served some additional yrs as US Senator after his VP term)

Spiro Agnew- 3 yrs as a County Executive, 2 yrs. as Maryland Governor

Walter Mondale- 4 yrs. MN Attorney General, 12 yrs. US Senator

George Bush (41st US President)- 4 yrs US Representative, various appointed posts including US Ambassador to UN(2 yrs), and CIA Director (1 yr). Private industry includes 10 yrs as President plus 2 yrs. as Chairman of an oil exploration company prior to running for Congress in 1966.

Dan Quayle- 4 yrs. US Representative, 8 yrs. US Senator

Al Gore- 8 yrs. US Representative, 8 yrs. US Senator

Dick Cheney- 14 mos. White House Chief of Staff, 10 yrs. US Representative, 4 yrs. Sec. of Defense. (Plus executive experience in private sector).

The 2 appointed US VP's (Gerald Ford & Nelson Rockefeller) didn't bother looking up, both had well over a decade of experience in significant elected offices.

Some US Presidents ( and Candidates for US President) have /had thinner resumes than the above named Vice Presidents. Hoping you all look over the candidates resumes between now & Nov.





I don't really see the point of that but it is cool information.


All I know is John MacCain should be going before America and HIS PARTY with SOLUTIONS to all the problems in the United States and all he has accomplished is an entire new batch of unanswered questions.

His age also concerns me...and that is not in insult. He will be 72...does he REALLY have the stamina to handle the intense stress of President of the United States to truly be involved with people like he should?

sapphiregirl
09-02-2008, 01:04 AM
And when did McCain do this?



I was referring to the press in regards to them going after Palins daughter.


But hey....John McCain, a man who has preached family values for over 10 years made the decision to throw a woman with a whole bunch of family values issues on the American people 2 months before the election.. she has a pregnant teenage daughter.....other qualified candidates could have been his VP.


He really does not impress me at all...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf0XRtzuWls&feature=related

cinammonkisses
09-02-2008, 02:06 AM
For all you people defending Sarah Palin and her being under the press. This woman is in an election for the Vice President of the United States at a time when the rest of the WORLD has us under a microscope because of Iraq. We are still a country at war.

Her JOB is to be able to take over the Presidents office in a second if something happens to him.


She should be under a microscope. How responsible was McCain to spring a candidate most people have never heard of on the American people so close to the election - a candidate he has never even worked with.

Call me a "Leftie"...but some of you have left the planet Wootwoot! Right on!

Melonie
09-02-2008, 03:26 AM
AGAIN trying to circle back on topic, we seem to be dwelling on the theoretical aspects of Palin's qualifications ( as well as Obama's qualifications ... and to some degree McCain's and Biden's qualifications also). Theoretical qualifications don't mean 'jack' if the election is lost. And there are several areas in which Palin has probably done more to help the McCain ticket stand a chance of winning this election than any other VP choice could have ...

- bringing in huge amounts of 'new money' campaign contributions from the formerly alienated conservative Republican support base

- forcing US domestic energy policy near the top of the election topics list ( a topic that is very relevant to anybody who buys gasoline / heating oil at $4+ per gallon, and an area where Obama is arguably vulnerable )

- stealing Obama's thunder at a point where 'triumphant' post-convention mainstream media momentum could have sealed the deal for the Democrats

- arguably providing additional appeal to SOME 'swing state' voters i.e. 'blue collar' background, NRA, Christian, female


From a theoretical standpoint there were many other people that McCain could have named as VP nominee who were far more 'qualified' to take over as president. However, from a pragmatic standpoint, none of them could have provided the shake-up, the free media publicity, and additional campaign contributions that Palin has - thus none of them would have had a serious chance of ACTUALLY being elected VP in the first place. Joe Lieberman would have caused McCain's conservative base to puke. Mitt Romney would have been vulnerable to 'rich, white, elite' attacks etc. The choice of Palin came straight from Machiavelli !

sapphiregirl
09-02-2008, 03:39 AM
AGAIN trying to circle back on topic, we seem to be dwelling on the theoretical aspects of Palin's qualifications ( as well as Obama's qualifications ... and to some degree McCain's and Biden's qualifications also). Theoretical qualifications don't mean 'jack' if the election is lost. And there are several areas in which Palin has probably done more to help the McCain ticket stand a chance of winning this election than any other VP choice could have ...

- bringing in huge amounts of 'new money' campaign contributions from the formerly alienated conservative Republican support base

- forcing US domestic energy policy near the top of the election topics list ( a topic that is very relevant to anybody who buys gasoline / heating oil at $4+ per gallon, and an area where Obama is arguably vulnerable )

- stealing Obama's thunder at a point where 'triumphant' post-convention mainstream media momentum could have sealed the deal for the Democrats

- arguably providing additional appeal to SOME 'swing state' voters i.e. 'blue collar' background, NRA, Christian, female


From a theoretical standpoint there were many other people that McCain could have named as VP nominee who were far more 'qualified' to take over as president. However, from a pragmatic standpoint, none of them could have provided the shake-up, the free media publicity, and additional campaign contributions that Palin has - thus none of them would have had a serious chance of ACTUALLY being elected VP in the first place. Joe Lieberman would have caused McCain's conservative base to puke. Mitt Romney would have been vulnerable to 'rich, white, elite' attacks etc. The choice of Palin came straight from Machiavelli !



I don't see it working. If McCain was trying to steal Obama's thunder...he must be pretty insecure. I think a hurricane stole McCain's thunder.

McCains conservative base and NRA base would have never voted for Obama anyway...does not really matter.

kitana
09-02-2008, 07:37 AM
For all you people defending Sarah Palin and her being under the press. This woman is in an election for the Vice President of the United States at a time when the rest of the WORLD has us under a microscope because of Iraq. We are still a country at war.


Really? We are at war? I would have never known that, especially the way people act on base.::)

Anyway, you are right SHE is running, NOT her husband. If her hubby is her age, he was 21 yrs old when his DUI happened. 21 years old!

I dunno about any of you guys, but I did a bunch of shit I would probably be given a world of grief over now when I was that age as so did my husband. But I will be DAMNED if I will be tared and feathered for shit HE did BEFORE we were together. That's a fucking stretch for EITHER side.

Dirty Ernie
09-02-2008, 08:07 AM
From a theoretical standpoint there were many other people that McCain could have named as VP nominee who were far more 'qualified' to take over as president. However, from a pragmatic standpoint, none of them could have provided the shake-up, the free media publicity, and additional campaign contributions that Palin has - thus none of them would have had a serious chance of ACTUALLY being elected VP in the first place. Joe Lieberman would have caused McCain's conservative base to puke. Mitt Romney would have been vulnerable to 'rich, white, elite' attacks etc. The choice of Palin came straight from Machiavelli !

But if you're on video record saying the VP choice will be made for the person best qualified to takeover for you from day 1, and you question the patriotism and accuse an opponent of choosing to win an election over a war, and your slogan is "Country First", you've opened yourself to all sorts of questions regarding your decision making ability.

doc-catfish
09-02-2008, 08:40 AM
I really don't think it was going to ultimately matter who JM picked considering it was a due certainty that whomever it was, the opposition was going to pick them to pieces. I mean five days ago, the near unanimity of us had never even heard this woman's name, and now we practically have dirt not only on her, but her family as well.

Having seen all the bitter ugliness this decision has brought, I'm really starting to wonder if picking a woman was such a good idea. As much as progressive minded women (i.e. Hillary voters) revile traditionalists talking down to them, they tend to revile that line of thought even more when it comes from one of their own as opposed to a male. And whether that woman practices what she preaches is meaningless. If she toes the line, she's the female equivalent of an "Uncle Tom". If she doesn't she's a hypocrite.

Just the same, the more that comes out that reveals Palin and her family are actually more like an actual family who have to deal with real world morality struggles and less like the Evangelical Christian ideal of what a family should be, she's going to be less and less attractive to that conservative base McCain needs.

AudreyLeigh
09-02-2008, 08:52 AM
Palins 17 year old is pregnant...

Miss_Luscious
09-02-2008, 09:58 AM
Palins 17 year old is pregnant...

We know.

Zia_Abq
09-02-2008, 10:13 AM
I understand. Let me put my thoughts in narrower perspective.

If I think a candidate is pro- or anti-abortion, that might factor into my decision, but not much, because I 99% doubt that he could do anything.

If I think a candidate is capable of starting an unnecessary war, that concerns me greatly, because he certainly could. That would have much more weight in my decision, and the problematic abortion issue is just so much noise in comparison.

Absolutely. No argument from me there. Just for the record, I’m not a single issue voter. This is just one of several hot button issues for me.

A forlorn request that we PLEASE not turn a debate on the candidates into a debate on abortion.

Request noted and will be respected.

Miss_Luscious
09-02-2008, 10:29 AM
Chelsea was made fun of the entire time her parents were in office


And when did McCain do this?

He did it June 1998. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/09/john-mccains-crude-chelsea-clinton-joke/)

Zia_Abq
09-02-2008, 10:32 AM
- forcing US domestic energy policy near the top of the election topics list ( a topic that is very relevant to anybody who buys gasoline / heating oil at $4+ per gallon, and an area where Obama is arguably vulnerable)


Obama being vulnerable on that or not really depends on a persons point of view on oil. For those who want to get off oil as the main source of energy Obama is the stronger candidate. There are actually plenty of old school conservatives who are rather interested in getting off oil and find the Obama/Biden energy plan to be of higher value than McCain/Palin plan. The Palin choice reinforces that idea.

Zia_Abq
09-02-2008, 11:00 AM
Having seen all the bitter ugliness this decision has brought, I'm really starting to wonder if picking a woman was such a good idea. As much as progressive minded women (i.e. Hillary voters)

If he really wanted to pull progressive minded female voters he should have picked a progressive minded woman and not someone like Palin. She is a hardcore far right conservative and far from progressive minded. Also if he wanted to pull alot of women in general he might have picked a women with a strong record on fighting for women’s rights. Palin has a rather weak record in that department.

Now I wouldn't ever vote for a conservative but I can admit that Palin may have started herself a nice ultra conservative political career there in Alaska. I give her credit for rising from the PTA to Gov. but she just isn't ready for the next step yet. I feel kind of bad for her that the GOP is using her this way. It's going to hurt her future in politics. It already has in many ways. Seriously two days in the national spotlight and already 2 scandals. Yikes!

The main problem with his choice of Palin is that McCain is assuming one woman is as interchangeable as another. That is what so many female voters are ticked off about regardless of political leaning. It is just downright insulting. If he just wanted a woman period, he should have gone with someone like Kay Bailey Hutchinson. If he wanted a progressive woman he should have chosen someone from outside the republican party or at the very least a republican woman who supported equal pay.

Optimist
09-02-2008, 11:03 AM
I understand. Let me put my thoughts in narrower perspective.

If I think a candidate is pro- or anti-abortion, that might factor into my decision, but not much, because I 99% doubt that he could do anything.

If I think a candidate is capable of starting an unnecessary war, that concerns me greatly, because he certainly could. That would have much more weight in my decision, and the problematic abortion issue is just so much noise in comparison.

He can do BOTH.


A forlorn request that we PLEASE not turn a debate on the candidates into a debate on abortion.

Are you unaware this is a women's forum? WE don't HAVE to care about being dragged into the war but we do have to worry about being forced to bear the child of a rapist or a genetically defective child with no chance of adoption!

doc-catfish
09-02-2008, 11:39 AM
She is a hardcore far right conservative and far from progressive minded. .....

Now I wouldn't ever vote for a conservative but I can admit that Palin may have started herself a nice ultra conservative political career there in Alaska.
Then what exactly was her hardcore right conservative brain thinking when she vetoed a ban on state employee benefits for same sex couples.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/government/legislature/story/8525563p-8419318c.html

Yep, real ultra conservative in action there. And the crazy part is that I haven't seen so much as a snippet of that mentioned on cable news. Granted, I've haven't been watching much.

TheSexKitten
09-02-2008, 11:45 AM
If McCain wins, I vow to bake a cake in the shape of a hat, and then eat it.

And then move to NZ or AUS.

Zia_Abq
09-02-2008, 11:53 AM
Then what exactly was her hardcore right conservative brain thinking when she vetoed a ban on state employee benefits for same sex couples.



Yep, real ultra conservative in action there. And the crazy part is that I haven't seen so much as a snippet of that mentioned on cable news. Granted, I've haven't been watching much.

Not exactly a high five since she wants to deny those benefits. I mean she did say this about it- "Elected officials can't defy the court when it comes to how rights are applied, she said, but she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to homosexual couples".

And correct me if I am wrong but doesn’t she supports a federal ban on gay marriage?

Havana
09-02-2008, 11:55 AM
her daughter is cute. you know ol' baby daddy was gettin' it! yowza!

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/images/gallery/bristol-palin-photo.jpg

AudreyLeigh
09-02-2008, 12:32 PM
We know.

Oh, sorry, I read back a bit but didnt see the mention of it. I will say I think it has no bearing on someone being able to be VP because their kid got knocked up. And I am NOT a Republican.

sapphiregirl
09-02-2008, 12:37 PM
Really? We are at war? I would have never known that, especially the way people act on base.::)

Anyway, you are right SHE is running, NOT her husband. If her hubby is her age, he was 21 yrs old when his DUI happened. 21 years old!

I dunno about any of you guys, but I did a bunch of shit I would probably be given a world of grief over now when I was that age as so did my husband. But I will be DAMNED if I will be tared and feathered for shit HE did BEFORE we were together. That's a fucking stretch for EITHER side.


Give me a break...Michele Obama and Biden's wife have been put through the same thing

Miss_Luscious
09-02-2008, 12:45 PM
Oh, sorry, I read back a bit but didnt see the mention of it. I will say I think it has no bearing on someone being able to be VP because their kid got knocked up. And I am NOT a Republican.

True. But it does raise some eyebrows as she has been held up as bastion of conservative family values. Some people might infer that she doesn't practice what she preaches at home or that she wasn't involved enough in her daughter's life to stop her from getting pregnant. Of course I don't follow that logic as I was a teen mom myself and that had no connection to my mother's parenting skills. I was just a thoughtless teenager.

I will say that her support of abstinence only education seems kinda...I don't know what but I guess it doesn't really work.

jester214
09-02-2008, 01:13 PM
He did it June 1998. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/09/john-mccains-crude-chelsea-clinton-joke/)

Oh, so he said something 10 years ago, after her father had already been president for 6 years... Hmm, seems slightly different... Although I doubt the most of the lefties will see it that way...

Eric Stoner
09-02-2008, 01:13 PM
If McCain wins, I vow to bake a cake in the shape of a hat, and then eat it.

And then move to NZ or AUS.

I'm not saying McCain is going to win but you might want to buy some new luggage. His choice of Palin gave him a much bigger bounce than Obama's choice of Biden. Frankly, I found that a bit surprising as it seemed to me there was a "reassurance" factor in picking a seasoned hand like Biden.

Picking Palin secures McCain's position with the conservative base who LOVE her.
It seems some have forgotten how distrusted McCain was by many on the hard right over McCain- Feingold and the "Gang of 14".

I think this race is going to be nip and tuck and come down to who performs best during the debates. Neither Obama nor McCain performed particularly well during the primary debates.

What is really amusing is the outright panic among some of the Dems. and their media supporters over the choice of Palin. Things like Eleanor Rodham Clift's remarks would NEVER be tolerated had they been made about a Democrat. And some of the stuff on the Daily Kos is far beyond the bounds of anything resembling basic decency let alone civility. It's obviously bothering Obama who appears to recognize there could be a serious backlash which would hurt him.

Miss_Luscious
09-02-2008, 01:16 PM
Oh, so he said something 10 years ago, after her father had already been president for 6 years... Hmm, seems slightly different... Although I doubt the most of the lefties will see it that way...

Dude, you asked when McCain said something bad about Chelsea and I gave you that. Why is it different? And is it OK to make fun of a child after their parent is already president? How and why?

Miss_Luscious
09-02-2008, 01:20 PM
I'm not saying McCain is going to win but you might want to buy some new luggage. His choice of Palin gave him a much bigger bounce than Obama's choice of Biden. Frankly, I found that a bit surprising as it seemed to me there was a "reassurance" factor in picking a seasoned hand like Biden.

Picking Palin secures McCain's position with the conservative base who LOVE her.
It seems some have forgotten how distrusted McCain was by many on the hard right over McCain- Feingold and the "Gang of 14".

I think this race is going to be nip and tuck and come down to who performs best during the debates. Neither Obama nor McCain performed particularly well during the primary debates.

What is really amusing is the outright panic among some of the Dems. and their media supporters over the choice of Palin. Things like Eleanor Rodham Clift's remarks would NEVER be tolerated had they been made about a Democrat. And some of the stuff on the Daily Kos is far beyond the bounds of anything resembling basic decency let alone civility. It's obviously bothering Obama who appears to recognize there could be a serious backlash which would hurt him.

Uh.... have you checked the polls or watched any news in the past few days? Palin has not been such a great thing for McCain and the Republicans. Where are you getting your information? I really want to know.

Jay Zeno
09-02-2008, 01:27 PM
Are you unaware this is a women's forum?
No, I'm not. That's why I stick to Customer Conversation (where I'm a mod), the Lounge, very occasional Club Chat posts only where it concerns clubs that I'm familiar with, very occasional Picture Post or Other Work where a little input from a photographer may be helpful, and Member Boards, where it's open season.


WE don't HAVE to care about being dragged into the war
I believe you do have to worry about being dragged into the war if you're a woman in the Armed Forces or reserves, or if anyone you care about is. Or if you care about the effects of a war, i.e., devastated places and many dead people. (I'm not being sarcastic, just serious.)

kitana
09-02-2008, 01:32 PM
Give me a break...Michele Obama and Biden's wife have been put through the same thing

Where and what about?

Cite a source please, I am unaware of their past history being drug into it.

kitana
09-02-2008, 01:37 PM
Are you unaware this is a women's forum? WE don't HAVE to care about being dragged into the war but we do have to worry about being forced to bear the child of a rapist or a genetically defective child with no chance of adoption!

You don't have to care.....YET. If things escalate over there and other countries, then a draft just might come up. And if they are smart this time around; they will draft WOMEN and MEN both. You should care just on the Rosie the Riveter from years past, because war can and WILL effect us, penis or not.

Personally, I DO CARE. My hubby is reserves, and I am prior service and still have many of my boys and girls I served with still active. I see countless friends and family members being sent over there left and right, so yes I care; I care VERY much. "Woman's forum" or not.

glitzy
09-02-2008, 01:56 PM
this can't help them...be sure to watch the videos in the comments:
http://current.com/items/89259419_members_of_fringe_alaskan_independence_pa rty_say_palin_was_a_member_in_90s


but this. this is hilarious & terrifying at the same time:
http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?t=26179

Eric Stoner
09-02-2008, 03:00 PM
Uh.... have you checked the polls or watched any news in the past few days? Palin has not been such a great thing for McCain and the Republicans. Where are you getting your information? I really want to know.

As a matter of fact I have, including Rasmussen. Obama is leading 49 to 45 % according to the Realclearpolitics AVERAGE of ALL the polls. Obama did NOT get the usual and customary post-convention bounce. Dukakis was leading Bush I by 17 points and Carter was 10 points ahead of Reagan at a similar point in time.
Obama's worried.

sapphiregirl
09-02-2008, 03:07 PM
As a matter of fact I have, including Rasmussen. Obama is leading 49 to 45 % according to the Realclearpolitics AVERAGE of ALL the polls. Obama did NOT get the usual and customary post-convention bounce. Dukakis was leading Bush I by 17 points and Carter was 10 points ahead of Reagan at a similar point in time.
Obama's worried.



Polls are worthless....There are tons of polls to support any view. The last election was VERY close even though the Democrats had a weak candidate like Kerry. Now we have Obama. Good Luck!



But maybe I should vote Republican...because I just watched this ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU&eurl=http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/

Miss_Luscious
09-02-2008, 03:16 PM
As a matter of fact I have, including Rasmussen. Obama is leading 49 to 45 % according to the Realclearpolitics AVERAGE of ALL the polls. Obama did NOT get the usual and customary post-convention bounce. Dukakis was leading Bush I by 17 points and Carter was 10 points ahead of Reagan at a similar point in time.
Obama's worried.

So Palin is a great pick for McCain and Obama is worried because Obama is leading in the polls? Seriously, watch some news. Sarah Palin is NOT going over well AT ALL.

Eric Stoner
09-02-2008, 03:44 PM
So Palin is a great pick for McCain and Obama is worried because Obama is leading in the polls? Seriously, watch some news. Sarah Palin is NOT going over well AT ALL.

According to whom ? Obama's cheerleaders in the mainstream media ? The same folks who predicted a Kerry win on Election Day 2004 according to their exit polls ?

Obama is worried because he is not leading by as much as he ought to be at this stage of the game and that's according to a lot of seasoned Dems like Bob Shrum.

sapphiregirl
09-02-2008, 04:00 PM
I wonder if Sarah Palin is going to thank all women who fought hard for women's rights over the years which gave her the chance to even be in the position she is in now.....DEMOCRATIC WOMEN are what gave her this opportunity...those damn bra burning lefties for womens rights

Miss_Luscious
09-02-2008, 04:00 PM
How much should Obama be winning by right now? And shouldn't McCain be winning if everything is great for him? I'm confused as to how a lead is a bad thing. Are you saying that although Obama has gained support in undecideds and independents, he is not winning by 30 points and is therefore in trouble? This is spin of the highest order.

Please see this (http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7012145473) and this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080828/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_conventions_the_bounce) for some info on Obama's gains and the post convention bounce.

sapphiregirl
09-02-2008, 04:09 PM
Perez Hilton is a trash talker but someone please tell me this photo has been altered.

Pool parties, booze and shot guns.....sounds responsible. Tell me this is not for real.

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/8769/n6431448507105029301wz7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Eric Stoner
09-02-2008, 04:35 PM
I wonder if Sarah Palin is going to thank all women who fought hard for women's rights over the years which gave her the chance to even be in the position she is in now.....DEMOCRATIC WOMEN are what gave her this opportunity...those damn bra burning lefties for womens rights

What party affiliation did Margaret Chase Smith have ? The first Senator to stand up to McCarthy ?. Who opposed women's suffrage ? Woodrow and MRS. WILSON. The woman who ran the country when Wilson was incapacitated by a stroke. Weren't they Dems ? Who appointed the first female Supreme Court Justice ?

Shouldn't Obama be grateful to all the Republicans without whom the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts would NOT have been passed ? It was all those wonderful Southern Dems like Sam Ervin and Robert "Sheets" Byrd who obstructed civil rights legislation for DECADES !

Miss_Luscious
09-02-2008, 04:38 PM
Perez Hilton is a trash talker but someone please tell me this photo has been altered.

Pool parties, booze and shot guns.....sounds responsible. Tell me this is not for real.

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/8769/n6431448507105029301wz7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

This has to be photoshopped. Has has has to be.

sapphiregirl
09-02-2008, 04:40 PM
This has to be photoshopped. Has has has to be.



I actually think it has to be photoshopped too.

G-Real
09-02-2008, 04:43 PM
What party affiliation did Margaret Chase Smith have ? The first Senator to stand up to McCarthy ?. Who opposed women's suffrage ? Woodrow and MRS. WILSON. The woman who ran the country when Wilson was incapacitated by a stroke. Weren't they Dems ? Who appointed the first female Supreme Court Justice ?

Shouldn't Obama be grateful to all the Republicans without whom the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts would NOT have been passed ? It was all those wonderful Southern Dems like Sam Ervin and Robert "Sheets" Byrd who obstructed civil rights legislation for DECADES !


republicans want it to be 1950s forever, and the 1950s were great if you were white and male, otherwise you've been pretty screwed.....

Lincolns Republican party is long since gone, but, if you want to play that game, look who is standing up from equal rights for the last 50 years, the Dems/liberals. I know I know, its a "what have you done for me recently mentality"

CKXXX
09-02-2008, 04:53 PM
Perez said it was photoshopped:"P.S. Yes, this pic is Photoshopped….and funny as hell!"


and she supports Alaskas cessation from the US. Yeah...way to go...pick someone that doesnt want to be part of this country
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/02/politics/animal/main4407224.shtml

Melonie
09-02-2008, 05:02 PM
but, if you want to play that game, look who is standing up from equal rights for the last 50 years, the Dems/liberals.

ahem I hate to burst any bubbles but ...

jester214
09-02-2008, 05:21 PM
Perez said it was photoshopped:"P.S. Yes, this pic is Photoshopped….and funny as hell!"


and she supports Alaskas cessation from the US. Yeah...way to go...pick someone that doesnt want to be part of this country
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/02/politics/animal/main4407224.shtml

She attended a meeting of the group, which held a large meeting in the town she was mayor in. Not quite support.

G-Real
09-02-2008, 05:31 PM
ahem I hate to burst any bubbles but ...



From Wikiipedia: (aka Mel's link"

your absolutely right, far as I know Kennedys have always been democratic
The bill was introduced by President in his civil rights speech of , , in which he asked for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments," as well as "greater protection for the right to vote."

He then sent a bill to Congress on . Emulating the , Kennedy's civil rights bill included provisions to ban discrimination in public accommodations, and to enable the to join in lawsuits against state governments which operated segregated school systems, among other provisions. But it does not include a number of provisions deemed essential by civil rights leaders including protection against police brutality, ending discrimination in private employment, or granting the Justice Department power to initiate desegregation or job discrimination lawsuits.

Melonie
09-02-2008, 05:44 PM
you seem to have skipped over ...

(snip)"The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963, but was then referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Democrat from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely.

It was at this point that President Kennedy was assassinated. The new president, Lyndon Johnson, utilized his experience in legislative politics and the bully pulpit he wielded as president in support of the bill.

Because of Smith's stalling of the bill in the Rules Committee, Celler filed a petition to discharge the bill from the Committee. Only if a majority of members signed the discharge petition would the bill move directly to the House floor without consideration by advocates. Initially Johnson had a difficult time acquiring the signatures necessary, as even many congressmen who supported the civil rights bill itself were cautious about violating House procedure with the discharge petition. By the time of the 1963 winter recess, fifty signatures were still wanting."(snip)

(snip)"Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Under Eastland's care, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate. Although this parliamentary move led to a brief filibuster, the senators eventually let it pass, preferring to concentrate their resistance on passage of the bill itself.

The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of southern Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[5]"(snip)

(snip)" President Johnson realized that supporting this bill would risk losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party. As Vice President, Johnson pushed the Kennedy administration to introduce civil rights legislation, telling Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway."[14] Senator Richard Russell, Jr. warned President Johnson that his strong support for the civil rights bill "will not only cost you the South, it will cost you the election."[15] The South indeed started to vote increasingly Republican after 1964. However, political scientists Richard Johnston and Byron Schafer have argued that this development was based more on economics than on race. [16]

Although majorities in both parties voted for the bill, there were notable exceptions. Republican senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona voted against the bill, remarking, "You can't legislate morality." Goldwater had supported previous attempts to pass Civil Rights legislation in 1957 and 1960. The reason for his opposition to the 1964 bill was Title II, which he viewed as a violation of individual liberty. Most Democrats from the Southern states opposed the bill, including Senators Albert Gore Sr. (D-TN), J. William Fulbright (D-AR), and Robert Byrd (D-WV). "(snip)

doc-catfish
09-02-2008, 05:47 PM
From Wikiipedia: (aka Mel's link"

your absolutely right, far as I know Kennedys have always been democratic

I think Mel provided the link more in reference to this:

The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of southern Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation.

Vote totals by party

The original House version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Melonie
09-02-2008, 05:49 PM
in regard to poll numbers, because of the electoral college system of selecting a president the fact that Obama has very high approval ratings in California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois etc. is of limited value when it comes down to actually winning the election. See for RealClearPolitics' latest assessment of state by state electoral votes ... which shows that one small state 'swinging' toward McCain could tip the overall electoral vote in his favor. THIS is the reason that the Democrats are nervous i.e. Colorado and New Hampshire are polling in the Obama column by a less than 1/2% margin, Virginia is a virtual tie, and 7 other states have margins of less than 5%.

~

Miss_Luscious
09-02-2008, 05:53 PM
She attended a meeting of the group, which held a large meeting in the town she was mayor in. Not quite support.

Wrong. (http://hogwash.today.com/2008/09/02/sarah-palin-and-her-husband-were-members-of-the-secessionist-aip-political-party/) And by your reasoning, if the KKK had a meeting then it would be fine if she attended because she was the mayor of the town.

Melonie
09-02-2008, 06:13 PM
plus you simply can't beat 'free advertising' like this ... unfortunately you can't see it in mainstream media




Also, you can't beat mainstream media's ability to BURY a story like this !!!