Gore Cuts His Running Mate List Down to 6, then 5

[RocketMan Tex]

Keeping with the recent political threads around this BBS, here are your contestants for The Price is Wrong:

House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri, Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts, John Edwards of North Carolina, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Evan Bayh of Indiana, and New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, who promptly took herself out of consideration.

My personal (IMHO) spin:

I'll bet my lunch money that he goes with John Kerry. The longshot bet would be Joe Lieberman. I doubt it will be Bayh because he favors a ban on late term abortions. And I don't really think that Gephardt wants to do it.

PS: My lunch money is less than five bucks! http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif


------------------
Bring It!!

[Achebe]

RM Tex:

Did you learn why Bob Graham wasn't in the list? I would find that interesting.

Thanks.

p.s. a John Kerry selection would seem to silence Cheney and Bush's (wusses) complaints against the Democrats' defense record.

p.s.s. Is it just me or are both parties essentially the same now? Both parties have strived for moderation. Now, the only way in which to question the candidates is to look at their records and question their motives.

------------------
Dubyah: Because the picture on the newspaper. It just seems so un-American to me, the picture of the guy storming the house with a scared little boy there. I talked to my little brother, Jeb—I haven't told this to many people. But he's the governor of—I shouldn't call him my little brother--my brother, Jeb, the great governor of Texas.
Jim Lehrer: Florida.
Dubyah: Florida. The state of the Florida.
—The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, April 27, 2000

Dubyah Speaks. (http://www.georgewbushspeaks.com/default.htm)

[This message has been edited by Achebe (edited August 03, 2000).]

[Rocketman95]

I don't want Bob Graham. If he accepts the nomination, then Bush would have the power to appoint a replacement, which would be a Republican.

I want him to choose Rubin. That would be an excellent choice.

------------------
Going for the Rolls Royce!

visit www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)

[This message has been edited by Rocketman95 (edited August 03, 2000).]

[Achebe]

Is that true RM 95? That seems highly unconstitutional. The voters should have their say (which would probably still be a moderate republican http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif).

Joe L. distances Gore from Clinton, but face it... mainstream America isn't going to vote for someone of Jewish decent (in every poll in N.C., Harvey always leads Helms, and inevitably the voters of course vote for Helms)... at least not on the Democratic side. The first lady, black or Jew (is that right, perhaps I should say 'of Jewish descent' again) VP or Pres. will be a Republican, obviously.

I think Kerry or Rubin have to be the nominee. I would like to know more about Rubin.

------------------
Dubyah: Because the picture on the newspaper. It just seems so un-American to me, the picture of the guy storming the house with a scared little boy there. I talked to my little brother, Jeb—I haven't told this to many people. But he's the governor of—I shouldn't call him my little brother--my brother, Jeb, the great governor of Texas.
Jim Lehrer: Florida.
Dubyah: Florida. The state of the Florida.
—The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, April 27, 2000

Dubyah Speaks. (http://www.georgewbushspeaks.com/default.htm)

[Smokey]

Gore needs someone popular to get him back in the race. The Democrats will honor President Clinton on the first night of their convention then tell him to get the hell out of LA. Gore will finally have the chance to get out of Clinton's personal shadow.

Kerry is a Vietnam Veteran. It should be quite interesting how that will play out should he be chosen.

Why is there such a backlash against Clinton (besides his personal mess)? I would think it would be Gore's advantage to use Clinton however he needs him.

------------------
This, my friends, is a post.


[This message has been edited by Smokey (edited August 03, 2000).]

[BrianKagy]

I just hope it's not Bayh.

Gephardt would be a dream; my luck's not that good.

[Rocketman95]

How did Hutchinson get in at first, wasn't she appointed after Bentsen left, and she just finished the term and got elected in 1994?

------------------
Going for the Rolls Royce!

visit www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)

[Achebe]

Gephardt would be a dream; my luck's not that good.

BK,

That's the funniest thing I've read here for a while. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

If Gore chooses the symbolic 80s' Democratic loser, I'll cry... and move to Vienna, Austria (and then cry some more).

Do you think Bayh has that much influence? I realize that he's pretty well respected... but will he get the Independents (not professing to know whether or not Kerry could handle that task)?

------------------
Dubyah: Because the picture on the newspaper. It just seems so un-American to me, the picture of the guy storming the house with a scared little boy there. I talked to my little brother, Jeb—I haven't told this to many people. But he's the governor of—I shouldn't call him my little brother--my brother, Jeb, the great governor of Texas.
Jim Lehrer: Florida.
Dubyah: Florida. The state of the Florida.
—The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, April 27, 2000

Dubyah Speaks. (http://www.georgewbushspeaks.com/default.htm)

[RocketMan Tex]

I really think it will be Kerry. Vietnam vet, young-looking (although he is only two years younger than Dick Cheney), decent record on the issues. Kerry as his running mate will allow the Dems to portray the Republican ticket as "old-guard", etc.

I'll tell you one thing: If Gore does choose Kerry, there is no way in hell I will sleep through the Vice Presidential debate. That'll be a barn-burner!

...but even a choice of John Kerry wouldn't persuade me to vote for them...

------------------
Bring It!!

[Achebe]

I cannot wait to see the presidential debates (provided Bush doesn't wuss out as he did immediately after Super Tuesday).

If the ugly one (Gore) doesn't come across as an automaton, it should be enlightening...

------------------
Dubyah: Because the picture on the newspaper. It just seems so un-American to me, the picture of the guy storming the house with a scared little boy there. I talked to my little brother, Jeb—I haven't told this to many people. But he's the governor of—I shouldn't call him my little brother--my brother, Jeb, the great governor of Texas.
Jim Lehrer: Florida.
Dubyah: Florida. The state of the Florida.
—The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, April 27, 2000

Dubyah Speaks. (http://www.georgewbushspeaks.com/default.htm)

[Smokey]

Originally posted by RocketMan Tex:
If Gore does choose Kerry, there is no way in hell I will sleep through the Vice Presidential debate. That'll be a barn-burner!


The Question and Answer sessions of the VP debates should be the ones to watch. Chaney will have to be ready to answer questions about his military record from the Vietnam Vet.


------------------
This, my friends, is a post.

[Will]

Nobody here thinks it'll be Jeanne Shaheen?

[Achebe]

Will,

Didn't she pull herself out of the running?

I'm betting on Kerry being the nominee. Whether it is moronic or not... having two Vietnam Vets on the stage will look rather formidable compared to the Bush/Cheney (4 deferrals? damn) 'wusathon' platform.

------------------
"At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived."
--Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush.

(Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00)
Dubyah Speaks (http://www.georgewbushspeaks.com/default.htm)

[Smokey]

Gore should announce Sen. Joseph Lieberman as his VP tomorrow.

Oh this is a big threat to Bush/Cheney. Not.

------------------
"Oh, God, Johnny, don't point that gun at me
There's so many ways our lives have changed
But please, I beg, don't do this to me" - New Order

[LHutz]

WILL is right, DUKE GUARANTEES it will be Jeanne Shaheen Rahim Abdul-Jabbar, DUKE has a exclusive source who PROPOGATED this rumor down to me!!!

In other news, DUKE heard that the DEMOCRATS are planning a REBUTT to the Republacans convention-- A CONVENTION OF THEIR OWN!!! brillant!

------------------
A SNEEZE is nature's WAY of saying "ACHOOOOO!!!"

[mrpaige]

Well, Lieberman does have the New Democrat credentials, but he has zero charisma. I think Kerry would've been a better choice, but, as far as issues go, Lieberman is a decent choice. (The charisma thing could hurt, though.)

------------------
www.houstonsportsboard.com (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)

[Achebe]

When I first heard this this morning I have to admit, I was preparing for the Bush years... that is, I was going to move to Vancouver. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

But listening to him & reading his bio, I have to hope that it's not like the scene in Annie Hall when Woody Allen (Ralph?) goes to visit Annie's (Keaton) family. Everything's normal until they show Annie's grandmother's perspective and she sees an Orthodox Jew w/ the curlies et. al..

The electorate is 30% Republican, 30% Democrat and 40% Indie. Here's to the Indies not all living in the deep South. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

Can Lieberman (sp?) take some of McCain's votes? His bio cites him as a campaign finance reform advocate, merely w/o the charisma and 'War Hero' title.

Damn, if Lieberman could just be a war hero from the midwest... it'd be over. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
"At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived."
--Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush.

(Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00)
Dubyah Speaks (http://www.georgewbushspeaks.com/default.htm)

[Dream34]

Can someone fill me in regarding Gore's new Vice President selection, Joseph Liberman.

What are his core values, what are his strength's and weaknesses. What does he bring to the table? Please fill me in.

All that I have heard so far is that he is Jewish. I know Tipper is Jewish and now the Libberman. Is this a sign of things to come?

This selection has got me rethinking my vote.

------------------
There's no 'I' in the word team, but there's three of them in Isaiah Rider. :D

[Achebe]

In what way Dream34?

------------------
"At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived."
--Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush.

(Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00)
Dubyah Speaks (http://www.georgewbushspeaks.com/default.htm)

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by BrianKagy:
So, GWB asking Colin Powell to be his VP didn't mean anything...?

Brian...did Dubya ask him? I thought Powell took himself out of consideration before Dubya had a chance to ask him. I could be wrong, but that's what I thought I read.

------------------
Bring It!!

[Achebe]

BK,

I have the utmost respect for Gen. Powell, but there will always be the question 'Would Bush have the gumption to choose a minority that wasn't also the most respected man in America?'.

------------------
"At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived."
--Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush.

(Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00)
Dubyah Speaks (http://www.georgewbushspeaks.com/default.htm)

[Almu]

He might of asked. But who'd he choose? Action speak louder than words, my friend.

And if I glance at the people on the Democratic Convention floor, I am sure I am not going to spot the occasional fly in the sea of rice like I saw at the Republican Convention.

The first women to be a candidate for Vice-President was Geraldine Ferraro. Chosen by Walter Mondale. Mondale was a Democrat. First Jewish Vice-President candidate is Lieberman. Chosen by Al Gore. Gore is a Democrat.

Who is doing the inclusion here?

------------------
I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan

[This message has been edited by Almu (edited August 07, 2000).]

[Bobby]

I'm not convinced that Lieberman is a done deal yeat. Kerry would be a better choice.

As for the ticket having two Vietnam veterans, it's true in name only. Gore was a REMF reporter for the Stars and Stripes, enjoying the relative safety of Saigon (probably as safe as NYC). I was a Ranger grunt and never heard of or saw a reporter at a firebase in NW South Vietnam. In fact, Gore was there less than six months, compared to 13 months for us ground pounders, then rushed back to the US to help on his father's Senate election campaign. Now Kerry's service record is much more credible; he is a true vet. I do believe that flying an F-4 or a F-105, even as a reservist, had to be more dangerous and take more courage than being a reporter. I'd much prefer jumping out of planes than pulling G's in a fighter.

------------------
"Who Wants To Be A Rocket?" - and probably a millionaire as well. The off-season will be interesting!

[mrpaige]

Just to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, there is no way of knowing whether Bush did ask and Powell declined. Just because GWB asked someone doesn't mean they have to accept.

------------------
www.houstonsportsboard.com (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)

[Almu]

Bobby, its already a done deal.

------------------
I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan

[mc mark]

From the Washington Post - March 20, 2000

WASHINGTON -- With the Republican primary campaign essentially completed, the politerati have started obsessing about the next best thing: running mates. George W. Bush's selection will be important in defining his own candidacy. Of all the GOP names tossed about these days, none stirs such enthusiasm among Republicans as that of Colin Powell, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Columnist George Will hailed Powell as Bush's best choice. Bush has said Powell would be a wonderful ticket-mate. Powell, though, maintains he has no interest in the post.



------------------

[Jeff]

Lieberman, huh. Well, I admire Gore for choosing someone of Jewish descent. The guy even skipped his own congressional swearing in because it was on the Sabbath! Any thoughts?

------------------
Save Our Rockets and Comets
SaveOurRockets.com (http://www.saveourrockets.com)

[Almu]

I absolutely love Gores choice. Brilliant move. Liebermans record is mint! The guy has high standards, has a record for standing up for minority issues and is really respected by Republicans which could help if Gore is elected. On top of that, he is Jewish. And that is a good thing because it shows who is really the party of inclusion. But that is not that big a deal(to me anyway). Alot of newspapers around here are making it sound like the guy is an alien or something. It does give me hope, though, that one day we might see some color in the White House. I really like the choice. Especially when the guy has the respect of everyone. Gore didn't go with the popular choice, so he might lose.

I am now really interested in this election. The Democratic Convention will be a joke. Another party. But if they ever get into some serious discussions about issues, I will be right there.

------------------
I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan

[Rocketman95]

He was also one of the Democrats that blasted Clinton during Zippergate, which could work well for independents.

I still would have chosen Kerry, but I think this is much better than any of the rest, save Rubin or Bradley.

------------------
Going for the Rolls Royce!

visit www.swirve.com (http://www.swirve.com)

[mc mark]

Dream34,

The 411 on Lieberman
http://www.issues2000.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

------------------

[mrpaige]

Well, he voted no on repealing the federal speed limits, so he's lost my vote. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

You can't be from West Texas and have much respect for the Double Nickel (Or even the 65 limit that was on Interstates toward the end of the federal rule).

Seriously, though, except for a few issues here and there, that record from the issues2000 site could easily be mistaken for the record of a Republican. I am willing to say that Sen. Lieberman's record is one of a centrist Democrat in pretty much every area.

------------------
www.houstonsportsboard.com (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)

[BrianKagy]

And that is a good thing because it shows who is really the party of inclusion

So, GWB asking Colin Powell to be his VP didn't mean anything...?

[MoonDogg]

Lieberman bears an uncanny resemblance to the guy from Alf......

[mc mark]

Jeff,

I think it's a good choice. My only concern is that people will be intelligent enough to look past his religious heritage and look at the man and his stand on issues. My wife seems to be under the impression that all people will see is a "jew" and automatically dismiss him. I have a little more faith in people (I hope I'm not being naive) to make an informed choice.


------------------

[Jeff]

moondogg: Max Wright played Willie Tanner on Alf. He was born August 2, 1943 and has appeared in numerous films and tv shows.

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

And, yes, Liberman looks like him.

------------------
Save Our Rockets and Comets
SaveOurRockets.com (http://www.saveourrockets.com)

[mrpaige]

See, I thought he meant that Lieberman looks like Alf.

Isn't that Max Wright guy on Norm now?

------------------
www.houstonsportsboard.com (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)

[BrianKagy]

Oh, I see. Because Ferraro (lol, can't write/say her name without laughing) and Lieberman are political opportunists but Colin Powell thinks he can serve his country better in other ways-- such as accepting a post as Secretary of State, the Democrats are inclusive and the GOP isn't.

When Powell and Condolleeza Rice are appointed to Cabinet positions, you'll have to do some real quick half-thinking to come up with an equally inconsistent opinion.

I am no longer taking this seriously.

[BrianKagy]

Paying a washed up hag like Chakka Khan to play for a convention doesn't make a party inclusive, policies do.

That's where we disagree: policies. I think black Americans would be better off under a Republican government-- especially those of them that are on welfare or living in poverty.

Most Democrats seem to think one of two things: A), Republicans are mostly interested in harming, repressing, or otherwise acting maliciously towards black Americans, or B) the GOP's failure to neatly label each of its policies under racial categories is equivalent to 'ignoring' racial minorities. Either way, Democrats are not shy about loudly interpreting matters that way when presenting their position to black voters-- whatever the GOP says or wants is alternately bad or indifferent for blacks.

Here is a little tip: when the GOP refers to its plan to help 'Americans' accomplish something, that includes blacks. That fact is conspicuously and intentionally (in my opinion) ignored by the left.

------------------
I didn't use the cocaine to get high, I just liked the way it smelled.

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by BrianKagy:
That's where we disagree: policies. I think black Americans would be better off under a Republican government-- especially those of them that are on welfare or living in poverty.

Most Democrats seem to think one of two things: A), Republicans are mostly interested in harming, repressing, or otherwise acting maliciously towards black Americans, or B) the GOP's failure to neatly label each of its policies under racial categories is equivalent to 'ignoring' racial minorities. Either way, Democrats are not shy about loudly interpreting matters that way when presenting their position to black voters-- whatever the GOP says or wants is alternately bad or indifferent for blacks.

Here is a little tip: when the GOP refers to its plan to help 'Americans' accomplish something, that includes blacks. That fact is conspicuously and intentionally (in my opinion) ignored by the left.



BK, no offense, but you sound like a tired old Ronald Reagan LP with a scratch on it. You may agree with Dubya that this is a new, inclusive Republican party, but I for one will wait and see just how inclusive it is before agreeing with him. Past precedent demands it.



------------------
Bring It!!

[Achebe]

Brian,

As far as the GOP's stance on minorities, I think that in the past, they have had people on their side that were overtly racist... but that in large part that the party will no longer be able to cater to those people (that is, former Demo or 'Dixiecrats' such as Strom Thurmond, etc.). I think that last week's convention was fluff, but if Bush wins it will be as monumental as Clinton's move to the center. Both are essentially challenging the extremists in their party to:

a) Not vote for them. Who are they going to vote for? This year the stakes are raised: both of the 'third parties' this year cater to the margins. Unfortunately for Gore, social conservatives will vote for Bush and many liberals will blindly vote for Nader. Hopefully Nader will be given a platform in the presidential debates, because honestly, I think Gore will destroy him as well as Bush.

b) Not vote. I would be interested in finding out how many zealots actually do not vote. My guess is that very few would actually not vote, regardless of the differences they have with their candidate.

It's actually tolerable for a democrat to voice non-liberal views nowadays. If Bush wins (god that's scary), something good will actually come out of it because some of the crazy Southern Republicans will try to cater to a constituency that they ignored in the past.

On real issues, I actually have to concede that the Republicans are like the Rockets at the end of the season: nothing to lose. They, like Perot in '92, can actually challenge the status quo w/ some innovative ideas. If Bush were a little bit more moderate on some of the bigger themes (tax cuts, for example), he'd actually do a better service to some of his more novel ideas... such as shoring up social security, vouchers, etc.

Unfortunately for Bush, however, he's gotten Gore's attention. I heard there will be two debates. I expect the first one to be charisma and alot of 'he called me risky' (much like Bush attacked McCain, and when McCain returned the favor Bush said he hurt me with his wooooords http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif). I expect the second debate to show Gore to be the master.

------------------
"At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived."
--Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush.

(Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00)
Dubyah Speaks (http://www.georgewbushspeaks.com/default.htm)

[This message has been edited by Achebe (edited August 08, 2000).]

[mrpaige]

The Democrats have certainly had their share of racists as well. As a matter of fact, until very recently, the "Racist" South was solidly Democratic. As a matter of fact, if you look at many of the most-outspoken racists of the '50s and '60s, nearly all of them were Democrats.

I think, these days, there are two factors that contribute to the heavy percentage of minorites who vote for Democrats. First is the fact that Democrats, as a party, have been trying to appeal directly to minorities for a longer period of time. I don't think the Republicans, as a whole, wanted to exclude minorities or even had anything against them. They simply didn't go after their votes early on, and once those votes appeared to be solidly Democratic, they wrote them off and didn't try to change the minds of those voters. It has only been very recently that the Republicans decided to try and appeal directly to minorities. I don't think that it was an effort before to exclude those minorities, there just wasn't any focused effort to appeal to them.

Secondly, there is simply the tradition. Once a person starts voting a certain way, they tend to vote that way pretty well all their lives. Look at my grandmother. She voted a straight Democratic ticket all her life but her views were more in line with what the Republican Party was espousing for the last two decades of her life. But she was a Democrat and she would never vote Republican. It works the same with a good many people, though it appears that younger people are less likely to vote party lines than their parents and grandparents were, so it may be changing.

------------------
www.houstonsportsboard.com (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)

[BrianKagy]

BK, no offense, but you sound like a tired old Ronald Reagan LP with a scratch on it. You may agree with Dubya that this is a new, inclusive Republican party, but I for one will wait and see just how inclusive it is before agreeing with him. Past precedent demands it.

If you want to talk tired, how about the policy of automatically dismissing anything the Republicans do as racist or 'a sham' designed to hide their racism?

I've already pointed out that that interpretation of the GOP-- because they don't say "HERE'S OUR PLAN TO SAVE THE BLACKS!", they're racist-- is incorrect, because the GOP doesn't pander to racial minorities as the Democrats do. You're operating from what I've already described as a flawed premise-- the GOP is racist, so unless it expressly adopts the Democrats' position on racial issues, it will continue to be so.

Who says Reagan was a racist? As I've already said, that tag was nothing more than an easy way for the Democrats to dismiss Republican positions. Saying that the GOP's agenda is racist doesn't make it true. If you look at the facts and realize that-- as I think most of the lefties on this board would admit-- the Republican Party simply disagrees with the Democrats over the best way to serve racial minorities, then you have to dismiss the idea that the GOP is some grand conspiracy to hurt black Americans.

Your response, "Well, the GOP's always been racist and still is, sorry" makes it pointless for me to continue this discussion. I have explained to you WHY you are mistaken in categorizing the GOP as racist. If you can manage nothing more substantive than to ignore what I'm saying-- my explanation of the miscategorization-- then I'm through.

I do want to make one more comment, however. I find it extremely personally offensive to be called a racist because I don't agree with you on how the government should operate. If someone said something like that to me in a bar-- "Oh, you're voting for Bush? You racist!"-- they'd leave with fewer teeth than they came in with.

------------------
I didn't use the cocaine to get high, I just liked the way it smelled.

[Almu]

Here is a perfect example on how the Republicans think they help out minorities.

Reagan comes in with his trickle wachamacallit which says give the rich all the tax breaks they need. Eliminate them from the corporate structure as well. Then, when the billionaires become gazillionaires, we can all benefit because it will trickle down and everybody will have more.

Well, guess what? That didn't work. Minorities don't own that many businesses. They don't make money like the people that own them. All it did was widen the gap between the rich and poor even further. They fooled American into a bunk idea when all it did was swell the pockets of rich, fat, white guys who own 90 percent of everything. Thats just one example. I can come up for more.

On the other hand, Democrats do more for minorities on the whole. Although, I don't think its enough STILL, they do more. For example, look at the Family Leave Act of 1993. It states that you have 12 weeks after a baby is born to stay home and take care of it. Who do you think that benefits? The rich guy who can afford 50 nannies to take care of his children while he is off to work in his new Ferrari? Or guys like me who are soon to be fathers and can have his girlfriend take of 4 months to be with our new baby without worrying about losing her job?

"The United States is enjoying the longest economic expansion in history; the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years; the most new jobs ever created under a single administration; the highest homeownership rate in history; the lowest poverty rate in twenty years and the largest five-year drop in child poverty since the 1960s." Wall Street Journal, April 4th 2000

Take a look at the above. Notice the "lowest unemployment rate" part and the "highest homeownership" part and the "largest five-year drop in child poverty" part. Um..do you think that these are the rich white guys they are talking about or the "other" people that had no home, were unemployed and their kids lived in poverty? You don't have to announce that this policy is for minorities or that this one is for blacks or this one is for Mexicans, etc. But a record showing that you are TRYING to help us out would be nice. Don't cut the taxes for Bill Gates so that he can hire more people. Cut MY f**king taxes so that I can afford to keep my home.

But alas, Clinton is leaving and the country will go right back to the partisan bulls**t it was always in before.




------------------
I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan

[Achebe]

Brian,

Figureheads don't make a party inclusive or not, policies do. Paying a washed up hag like Chakka Khan to play for a convention doesn't make a party inclusive, policies do. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

Gore on the surface has some cajones. On review though, which states in the U.S. would actually vote differently b/c of the ticket?

Florida may be the only one, and that's actually a positive for the Gore campaign...

In the moderate midwest, it doesn't seem like being a Jew is of any importance. The racist states in the South are going to vote republican anyway (you guys can have those votes http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif).

This pick is pretty interesting. It calls out Liberals that were afraid of Gore (Liebermann is the same guy, just Jewish) and challenges those to not vote for a Jew.

------------------
"At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived."
--Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush.

(Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00)
Dubyah Speaks (http://www.georgewbushspeaks.com/default.htm)

[Almu]

No, Brian. Thats not why.

Its because when you look at the Republican constituents, 95 percent are white. I know that there is still 5 percent non-white. But, in my opinion, they should have a liiiiiiiitle more variety, don't you think? http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan

[Will]

1. It's OK to call people what they call themselves. Blacks are blacks. Jews are Jews. Joe Lieberman is a Jew. You can call him a Jew. You can call him Jewish. You can call him "of Jewish descent," if you want, but that's like calling someone "of black descent" or "of Catholic descent." Barry Goldwater was of Jewish descent -- his dad was Jewish, but Barry decided to become an Episcopalian like his mom. But Joe Lieberman is a plain good-old-fashioned Jew. As am I.

2. I have to step in BK's side about the Republican ethnic outreach stuff. First of all, George W. Bush was not too racist or too afraid to pick Colin Powell as his running mate. Bush would have put his own hair in cornrows if that would have persuaded Powell to join the ticket. Powell would have blown the doors off the Democrats. The only plausible reason why Bush didn't pick him is that Powell refused to be picked. Second, although Republicans have often practiced racial tokenism (and so have Democrats, by the way), there has to be some point in the courtship at which you say to yourself, "Hey, maybe these guys are for real." That Republican convention was not just tokenism. They spent hours talking about the kinds of problems that blacks and Hispanics in poor urban neighborhoods face every day. And their keynote speaker slapped a lot of their donors by ripping Republicans who want special tax breaks but oppose affirmative action. Spending that kind of TV time and taking those kinds of political risks signifies more than tokenism. It is serious stuff. It's just a start, but it's serious.

[Achebe]

Will,

I have no doubt that Bush's feelings towards minorities is genuine. As Mango has taught me, go literally on everything someone says (j/k Monsieur Mangue). You should give someone the benefit of the doubt until they spoil your efforts.

Spending that kind of TV time and taking those kinds of political risks signifies more than tokenism. It is serious stuff. It's just a start, but it's serious.

Although I'm sure that the majority of moderate Republicans aren't racist, Colin Powell was in no means preaching to the choir on minority issues/concerns. He utilized (as well he should) his position of fame to focus the Republicans at the outset on issues of affirmative action and abortion. Did they stay focused? Hell no. They took advantage of the 'air' and then redirected the theme into a place they felt comfortable (they were of course fine w/ minorities meeting them at that place http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif).

Was that a 'risk'? Not for the party, Powell isn't running and there's no way in hell that republicans would ever support affirmative action. Considering there are constitutional concerns too, I consider Powell's speech tokenism. He means it, Bush probably agrees with it in principle (different method), but 95% of the people there were shaking their heads at a man they respect, little more. "I have deep admiration for Powell" and then the focused whisper "of course I don't agree w/ most of the things he says". If it wasn't tokenism, then open up the debate... don't hide behind a potential misunderstanding for Americans... we're just playing "sexual relations" games in that ballpark.

If a democrat brings up banning abortions (not just partial birth) next week, do you not think that the party will immediately correct the individual in a press release in 5 minutes?

p.s. I'm sure the Republicans enjoyed the attention that Powell granted them, however. Everybody likes a man in uniform.

p.s.s. And as Chris Matthews said "it must be great to be a black American, everyone of them spoke tonight".

------------------
"At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived."
--Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush.

(Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00)
Dubyah Speaks (http://www.georgewbushspeaks.com/default.htm)

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by BrianKagy:

I do want to make one more comment, however. I find it extremely personally offensive to be called a racist because I don't agree with you on how the government should operate. If someone said something like that to me in a bar-- "Oh, you're voting for Bush? You racist!"-- they'd leave with fewer teeth than they came in with.


Hold on there, hoppity! Did I ever post "BRIAN KAGY IS A RACIST"????????

I keep looking through previous posts and I don't see it. Therefore, I don't believe I called you one. So, do us a favor & chill.

With that said, here are my reasons why the GOP can be considered a little more racially, ethnically, religiously & sexually "intolerant" than the Democrats:

1. The Republicans historic lack of support for civil rights.

2. The Republicans historic lack of support for Gay rights.

3. The Republicans historic lack of support for Affirmative Action, a stance that was belittled at the Republican Convention by your supposed future Secretary of State, Colin Powell.

4. The Republicans historic lack of support for the Equal Rights Amendment.

The facts are there, and you can look them up for yourself. I could go on until I'm blue in the face, but it would be useless to argue this with someone who ignores facts. May I suggest, rather, that you try switching to decaf. It may save you from that early heart attack you are well on your way to! http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

Here's a little story for you to read. Enjoy!

********************************************

Officially formed on July 11, 1954, less than two months after the landmark anti-segregation decision Brown v. Board of Education was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Citizens Councils of America was founded with the express purpose of supporting the concept of White Superiority. Nevertheless, in hopes of distancing themselves from other racists, the leaders proclaimed that they were of a "better class" than the KKK who burned crosses and wore white sheets. Instead, they proclaimed, the members of the Citizens Councils of America wore suits and ties, were owners of local businesses, were doctors and were elected mayor. The driving force behind the group, Robert Patterson, wrote in 1956 that the Citizens Councils was created because, "Integration represents darkness, regimentation, totalitarianism, communism and destruction. Segregation represents the freedom to choose one's associates, Americanism, State sovereignty and the survival of the white race".

The group wielded great political clout throughout the South in the 50's and 60's but saw their membership fall from an estimated 250,000 at its peak in the 50's to the point where the group nearly disbanded in the late 70's. The early eighties, however, was a friendly time for racists, a time when America elected an administration far kinder to their sick views. The group began using the vocabulary of the time to legitimize their cause. They first changed their name to Council of Conservative Citizens. Then they began decrying "giveaway programs" and "special preferences" and "quotas" and "crack-related crime" and "single mothers" and "third generation welfare mothers" "dependent" on government checks and food stamps. They found that they could join with other far right wing radical groups like the John Birch Society and that they were even able to attract past campaign workers for racists politicians like Lester Maddox of Georgia and George Wallace of Alabama as well as supporters of the white government in South Africa. Forming new branches in many Southern states was simple, considering that the local government was epitomized by folks like conservative Republican Governor Kirk Fordice of Mississippi who declared that he was not "going to, just because it's politically correct, demonize the CCC. There are some very good people in there with some very good ideas. All this stuff about them being racists, that's hearsay, as far as I'm concerned". (All a statement like that proves is that Fordice needs a better foundation in American history.)

The group promotes the view that the white race is superior to all others and that America has always been a white, European culture that is now threatened by black and Hispanic cultures. Even though these racist views have long been found wanting in more intelligent circles (in particular among the Native American tribes who occupied this land for just a few thousand years longer than white Europeans), that hasn't stopped them from pretending to be intelligent. Even their national board "boasts" such "thinkers" as Yale University educator and self-described "racialist" Jared Taylor, author of "Paved With Good Intelligence" which argues that different races have genetic differences in intelligence levels.

Apparently, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, even though he was born in the same area, Carroll County, as the national headquarters of the CC of C, hasn't learned the lesson that the majority of Americans detest any form of racism. He has made many speeches to its members as well as inviting the leaders to his Washington Senate offices. Lott has even appointed the head of the CC of C's Mississippi branch to be his election chairman in Carroll County. The Council of Conservative Citizens crows that at least 34 state legislators belong to their little organization and it is a fact that at least two candidates for governor in southern states have spoken at their meetings and, as noted above, even the Senate Majority Leader has knelt before the group's ideological altar of hatred. Now, Lott suddenly finds his association a problem in that he sees himself as a possible vice-presidential candidate and worries that ties to foul and hateful groups such as this may be too expressive of his true beliefs. In fact, his greatest worry is that his association with the Council of Conservative Citizens might put off real human beings who would vote for any Republican, even Lott, but may find an overt racist just a tad too disgusting.

********************************************

Have a wonderful day!


------------------
Bring It!!

[mrpaige]

From today's Orlando Sentinel (by Kathleen Parker):

Improbably, a mariachi band dressed in blue toreador suits is playing "Guantanamera" as a parade of, yes, mostly white people passes by: two portly women in matching red-and-blue shirts dotted with white stars; a woman in sequins and high heels; many, many legs mysteriously sheathed in white hose.

I spot a yarmulke or two; an Asian man videotaping ; a lone black woman. Rather than mirroring America's soul, these random ethnic sprinkles give the impression of an Epcot fire drill. It's easy to understand the cynicism. Where is the diversity? The better question may be, where are the reporters when diversity happens?

Where were they when Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., called a press conference Thursday afternoon? At a convention criticized for its pale complexion, Watts' appearance with a few dozen fellow African-Americans had the visual impact of a spontaneous oasis.

Suddenly in the midst of White Wonderland (the media, not the convention) materialized a crowd of black people eager to talk about conservatism and their man, George. Did you see the story? Didn't think so. Why? Because J.C. Watts is a black conservative, which constitutes non-news in the media tents. Perhaps the same non-news perspective is what kept the networks from covering Watts' speech before the 1996 Republican Convention. Cynicism or censorship?

Give a conservative African-American a microphone and a podium and reporters figure there's something wrong with the guy. Give Jesse Jackson the same microphone and a civil-rights platform as fresh as a loaf of Capt. Ahab's hardtack and reporters jockey for sound bites.

The few reporters who did attend Watt's conference hurled the requisite challenges, especially concerning the congressman's historical opposition to affirmative action, as in: "How could you?" Watts' answer was less prosaic than most of what passed for "quotes" at the convention and bears repeating on its own merits, if not for old-fashioned reportorial balance:

"You take a poor black child," he said, "Give him a good education, tell him he's somebody, that God didn't create junk when he created him, and that black child will create his own affirmative action."

Only a cynic would disagree, or fail to mention it.

------------------
www.houstonsportsboard.com (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)

[Achebe]

mrpaige:

Everyone listens to Jesse Jackson b/c they're expecting him to say an ethnic slur towards Jews again. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

Plus, it's fun to impersonate his speeches.

On J.C. Watts: I'm not so sure that he's being censored. Ask Americans who two black Republicans are and they'll guess Powell and Watts.

------------------
"At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived."
--Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush.

(Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00)
Dubyah Speaks (http://www.georgewbushspeaks.com/default.htm)

[Almu]

Here is what it comes down to.

RocketmanTex stated perfectly about the lack of credibility that the Republicans have when it comes to minority issues. There is very little and even to this day, they boo their own gay congressman on stage. I don't care much for affirmitive action myself, but we all know what they think about that.

But, the Democrats can do BETTER when it comes to issues that concerns us. Yea, they do more than the Republicans, but what does that mean? We still have prejudice at work. We still have inner city problems that can be addressed more. Minimizing welfare was an excellent move. But still, we have a long way to go and I don't think we can get there unless the Republicans and the Democrats tackle this problem TOGETHER. But, because of the bi-partisan bull, the people of this country will have to do it on their own if they want to live together in peace.

If you think about it, the parties mirror America. Republicans are white. Democrats are the minorities. They occasionally get along. But most often than not, they don't let their friends and relatives even give a thought about marrying someone from the other side.

------------------
I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan

[mrpaige]

Achebe, I wasn't promoting the opinions of Ms. Parker as my own. I was just noting the column since it related to the subject at hand. I don't think she was saying that Watts is censored. She was saying that he called a press conference at the Convention and few reporters showed up, for whatever reason. Her point was that the media can be biased in regards to Republicans (I mean, it was a reported story that there weren't many minorities at the convention, yet when there was an opportunity to showcase one of the rising stars of the GOP who happens to be a minority, much of the media passed. Now, I don't think it is necessarily bias against Republicans that made those people pass on convering Watts and the other Black Republicans at this press conference, but it is curious to me.)

But I wasn't there and haven't asked the reporters why they didn't attend the press conference. Perhaps they all have very good reasons for not doing so. But one point is that you can't very well see minorities at a convention if the media chooses not to cover one of the events where minorities were showcased (poor choice of words, but you get my drift.)

Of course, evenryday that goes by, I feel less and less like I belong in the GOP, so I might be arguing for the other side by the time that this thread finally winds down. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
www.houstonsportsboard.com (http://www.houstonsportsboard.com)