No, you're just reaching. Its not unlike you but you've overused the search option in the past as well looking for a contrarian position. Let me spell it out for you: Its not hypocritical to oppose an institutionalized prioritization of women and other minorities while saying "I support Rice because 1. she's just like Dubya (philosophically), 2. she is very smart, 3. comes from that oh so rare breed of conservatives in academia, 4. would signal a dramatic shift in the perception of the Republican party (hard to call a party racist or a good ol' boys club if they have a black woman as president) 5. has a lot of foreign policy experience, and 6. would really cheese off the liberals. Only the middle part even comes close to providing a shallow contradiction. But that assumes that you believe that one who is against affirmative action would never support women/a minority. 1, 2, 3, 5, & 6 have NO link to affirmative action. 4 might if one takes a cursory glance at the topic, but saying the Republicans can improve their image by having a black woman in charge is not the same as saying an across the board standard should be used to nominate positions. In the absence of 1, 2,3 5, & 6, it is highly doubtful that he would be looking toward the nomination of Rice. A fallacy on which you so readily and aggressively stake your credibility. Sorry, Charlie.
"Character" is much more important to you than a candidate's "stand" on the issues? I put quotes by those two words because they're both pretty difficult to get a read on from a candidate, if they don't have a record in office. Rice has no political record, except for her strong tie to George W. Bush. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, she's never run for political office. All we have to go by, that has any real meaning in the political sphere, is her words and actions since she hitched her ride with Bush. I don't see any character with regards to Rice. There is much to make one believe she lacks character, if one doesn't have blinders on, IMO. I don't see any firm stands on issues, except for those issues that are important to Bush, with which she publically stands four square. At least Giuliani has a political record, and volumes of quotes that give his take on the issues. Is he a man of character? In some regards, certainly. If his private life matters, which it doesn't to me, many would say he lacks character by the truckload. I have to say I'm confused over the interest in Rice. She is a walking, talking academic suit, who happens to be a woman and black, that has lied and equivocated at the drop of a hat. She disgusts me. Giuliani is at least a facinating fellow, with depth and a record. Keep D&D Civil!!
The biggest problems with Rice are that she's never served in elected office, has no domestic policy experience (or domestic policy), her performance before the 9/11 panel shows that she has a problem keeping her stories straight (of course these days that's considered a plus in some circles), not a very inspiring speaker, she's not married, a woman and black in a party dominated by white male social-conservatives other than that she's ideal. As for who should be the nominees of either party in 2008 its way too early to say who should be. Overall I have a hard time finding much appeal with either party and think nationally both are due for a major realignment.
Yes. I did not put those forth as positives in regard to creating diversity, righting past wrongs, or whatever other nonsense the libs come up with while pandering to their base, but rather as PR. I have no problem with a company hiring a minority for public relations purposes, in a market economy, that is the only way to survive (the "white's only" companies wouldn't be to popular to minority consumers, no would they.) I do not think Condi should get any special treatment in the election, like spotting her a million votes to make up for her "racial disadvantage". If she is going to get the job of president, it should be on her own merits (ie, getting more votes than her opponents) and not because of some program trying to "level" the playing field. I also think it would be terribly humiliating for the Democrappy Party which is more popular with women and consistantly pulls in 90+% of the black vote if the Republicans (the party the left paints as a bunch of racists, in no small part due to the opposition to AA) put the first woman and the first minority in the highest office. You may consider these positions to be hypocritical, and that is your perrogative, but I have no trouble reconciling them. Sorry to disappoint you in your attempt to get an AA convert. I honestly don't know if Condi could get through the primaries. With the support of a very popular (among Republicans) president, with a lot of money behind her (if Dubya raises for her) it would be possible. I haven't really studied primaries much, and the person coming out of them is never the one I'd pick going in, so I don't pretend to speak on it with any authority. Having said that, the questian at hand was not "Who will be the next GOP candidate, but rather Why do you like Condi?" I don't think primaries have anything to do with that.
Why do conservatives always say this? It seems silly (not to mention spiteful) and shows a lack of understanding of history and a reading of our country. Of course the first black or woman president will be a conservative. To me, that goes without saying and I would be shocked if it didn't hold to be true. Sure, there could be an exception, but the odds are against it. There would never have been a PM Thatcher if she was in the Labor Party, for example. A minority of any kind is seen as less threatening/severe to the majority when they are aligned with a conservative party. Oh well, proceed.
I've never seen anyone openly admit a willingness to exploit someone because of their race. I think racial exploitation(amont others) is one reason why African Americans continue to vote Democratic. I find it shameful to think of exploiting somebodies race or ethnicity. I don't think the democratic party paints them as racist, as much as actions like admitting to a willingness to exploit people because of their race, vetoing sanctions against Apartheid, having different laws for crack than for regular cocaine etc. painst them as not being a party that has the best interest of minorities in their mind.
That's a rather defensive response for somebody who's pretending nothing is wrong, but anyway, I'm glad to see that you think race can be used as a plus factor when selecting employment. That is affirmative action. You engage in it, you support it.. Obviously, you were lying in the other thread, or else you were mistaken, or maybe you're no longer a Republican, *sniff, but as long as we are all clear as to your position, I'm glad . By the way, your "pro-life" reason for being Republican is also evaporated when you push Condi for president due to race-based reasons. My you are a principled young man.
Sam, I fully expect Roe vs. Wade to be overturned and abortion to be illegal before the next president takes office, so the abortion debate will no longer need to be the determining factor in deciding my vote. If the abortion question is still up in the air, I will not vote for a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life one. Like I said earlier, if you feel my AA stance is hypocritical, that is your prerogative. I won't be changing my lack of support for affirmative action laws. You are right about one thing though, I am not a Republican. No party fits me perfectly, but I would like some combination of Repub and Liertarian. Calling my post defensive is rediculous, considering it followed an accusatory post by you. God forbid I defend myself when you call me a hypocrit. How about you stop taking shots at people, and we'll stop being defensive.
You've essentially made the argument for affirmative action here. Without programs that forcibly opened up the doors of education, franchisement and economic advancement through affirmative action most minorities wouldn't have had the chance to compete economically or politically. Racism and segregation by nature make bad economic sense in except when there are strong societal and legal pressures behind them. As long as minorities were systematically denied opportunities for advancement it would continue to be in the interest of businesses and politicians to ignore them. Only once minorities actually gained some economic power does it make economic sense for companies to look to compete for minority consumers.
It's not my prerogative, it's a simple fact. You endorsed affirmative action above. You don't have to change your lack of support for "affirmative action laws" - you already did. You freely support affirmative action whenver it furthers your self interest, like any good rational welfare maximizer. We'll all be sure to read between the lines next time you speak your mind on the subject - you oppose affirmative action except for when you support it, based on your personal preferences. Nothing wrong with that, just be honest about it is all I'm asking, instead of pretending to rest on a principle that you don't harbor. It's like me posting "I'm against posting on Clutch BBS". I can post it alot, but it's pretty meaningless. (by the way, what "affirmative action laws" do you speak of? The Affirmative Action Act of 2004? )
That's certainly within the realm of possibility but if you think that will end the issue you got another thing coming. Most polling, even among Republicans, still show strong support for keeping abortion legal. The differences lie in regard to what restrictions are in place. If abortion were flat out banned that would create huge tensions that would likely lead to it being reinstated along with massive turnover among the politicians that supported a ban. Consider for a moment that there've been Republican Presidents and Congresses who've toed a "Pro-Life" line yet abortion is still for the large part legal. Roe V. Wade itself isn't very good law but even a primarily conservative court has refused to overturn it and barring that it is possible to craft Federal law that could get around that. So while abortion is a huge issue the leadership of the Republican party has been careful around it, even if there rhetoric is heated at time. I believe that they know that an outright ban on it would spell as much of a huge blow to the party as what happened to the Democrats during Civil Rights.
