What's really odd is that this guy is going to be one out of 7-8 people who will be legitimately competing to become the leader of your country of 300million+ people. and we know this years in advance, despite any such antics he pulls.
Not sure what's odd about it. Democratically elected and experience federal legislator in a reasonably diverse and populous state becoming a candidate for an executive position in the same country. Every advancement he makes towards that goal will be validated by some subordinate elective process. Since we have fairly free and robust press, and a thoroughly well kept records of governmental decisions and activities; the electorate will have every opportunity to learn as much about him as possible before casting their vote. His heredity, religious piety or tribal ethnicity will never be grounds for disqualification or imprisonment; and all of the above would still hold if the candidate were female.
Quite possibly, but not a guarantee. Recent American history is littered with anointed politicians making blunders and never reaching what appeared likely... Jindal and Sarah Palin come to mind.
Actually that's the only thing most advertising and TV-trained pollsters and ratings-driven journalists have focused on since the early '60s. Otherwise Couric would have been grilling George Allen Jr. about the Dean Corollary to the Muskie/Hart Doctrine in the Rockefellerian Era.
the thread title has left this in my brain for the day<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aDD7LpsW6p8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> i couldn't google that. The sky is going to fall on our heads!
Round 2, this time at historically black Simmons College... In reference to this bolded part, who are the "some?" There are tons of white people involved in black history. Indeed, you can't study or write about US history without black history. I don't think some people are upset with Eric Foner or James McPherson or Edward Ayers. I can see how some people would be upset with a lecture that intentionally corrupts history, but that is a different animal. Anyway, poor Rand. Gets called on his BS and immediately plays the victim card. Typical modern Repub.
The party of Abraham Lincoln huh? I guess it's not surprising that the party that rejects evolution also denies the evolution of American politics over the last 150 years.
The funniest part of this whole thing is that it won't matter. The majority of African-Americans are voting democrat anyway, and the ones that vote republican are probably doing so for their own personal economic benefit, and will likely disregard this.
Here Is the thing Obama won't be running in 2016 Also . . a lot of his policies are not overly popular with black people HE IS POPULAR but his policies are seen as very meh Not to be too rude but black people generally don't care much about immigration or same sex marriage they have their opinions but it is not as important as other issues. Generally. . .we can take or leave it . . A friend of mind [black] put it best We want a party that has the compassion of the left but without the hedonism and some common sense [practicallity] or The practicality of the Right without the racism, classism, elitism and heartlessness of the right The republicans need to speak to that they have a very hard time explaining how their policies would help black people the left does explain how the theory of their policies will help but a lot are seemingly impractical and simply have not worked as advertised. Rocket River
