I'm against both, but I was talking about where the difference between one group holding most of the power and using it to discriminate is different from personal levels. I didn't say anyone was powerless, and I also don't think groups are monolythical agents acting with one unified purpose. So it's not like the big bad white guy holds all power. The problem when discussing racism is that people usually talk in too broad of strokes. To some people if there aren't lynchings going on and racism isn't legally allowed in employment, school acceptance, then there is no racism. However it goes much deeper than that. Those things rarely happen on any overt level these days, and that is good. But it is time to move on to the next phase. That is where you have people who might be scared at night if they saw two black teenagers walking down the street, and try and avoid them, but wouldn't be scared if they saw two white teenagers walking down the street. If people make assumptions based on skin color, like black people won't buy my product unless I have black people working in the company, and I can hold up a black employees image to show them how much I am appealing to the needs of the African American community, then that is exploitive and racist. But we need to get past the idea that if a person doesn't say I don't want him working here because of his color, or I don't get along with people of a certain color, or even worse than that that racism doesn't exist. There was a while back when a studio had to take down a billboard advertising a movie that showed 2pac holding a gun. Not far down the road was a billboard of Christian Slater holding a gun, and nothing was said about it. The reason being that those with the power to make those kinds of decisions are scared of black people with guns, but are more easily able to identify white folks with guns as just being something for the movie, and not really dangerous. Just a couple of years ago the Houston Chronicle talked about some high school students that were suspended from HS football playoffs because various violations. Two were white and two were black. The paper didn't print the name of the white students at fist, but did print those of the black students. They weren't denying people anything, but they did treat them differently. After a stink was made, they published all the names. Anyway my point is that racism is more subtle than the over stuff we all heard about from the past. It still exists, and saying that the only qualification a person needs to work at a company is skin color, so that those running the company can then publicize the fact they have a minority working there, in order to hoodwink the minority consumers, then we have racism.
uhhmmmm, so does anybody think a hill v. jeb race in 2008 is a good thing, or would you rather see some combination of bredesen/obama v. rudy/[insert token black republican here]
The advantage of Hillary running is that if defeated, she will likely disappear from politics (or here's hoping anyway). The disadvantage would be that she might be elected. I don't know much about Jeb, but I'm guessing that would just be a way to extend the current administation.
he's at least as qualified, if not more so, than his brother was in 2000. i'd gladly forgo a JEB candidacy if we could also eliminate Hillary. just say no to nepotism! Rudy "Vinnick" G in 2008!
well that's setting the bar pretty low Is the barrel really that empty??? Hillary's been a political animal since high school. Lots of you disagree with her ideas, which is fine, but she's certainly more qualified than most (again, assuming you agree with her stances on issues, and can get over the Bubba baggage she's carting about). Why Jeb...other than the Bush family connection?
Let's run Jeff Van Gundy and Pat Riley on one ticket and Bill Walton and Phil Jackson on the other. Then we could move this to the GARM and argue there. The third party candidate could be Calvin Murphey with Cynthia Cooper as a the running mate.
as i understand it, the feeling among "bushies" prior to 2000 was that JEB was the one w/ true presidential timber and temperment. i think his job as governor of florida these past several years has been much harder than GWB's was a governor of texas. florida is an amazingly fractious state: Elian gonzalez, teri schiavo, the 2000 elections, etc. JEB's done a pretty good job. as to the larger issue of qualifications, i was going to do a separate thread on this, but with people questioning Rice's qualifications it makes sense here. what's make a candidate more qualified, several years as governor of a small southern state, be it arkansas or georgia, 6 years as governor of one of the second largest state in the country, or 8 years at the top level of the administration, 4 of them as sec of state, 3rd in line for the presidency? among recent presidents, that is to say since carter, only GHWB was more qualified when he took office than Dr. Rice would be in 2008, assuming she stays at state.
No way! Lets keep this out of that stinking cesspool of monkeys flinging pooh at each other! Next you'll want to run Lindsey Lohan vs. Jessica Alba and get this moved into the (shudder) HANGOUT...
On qualifications I would say Jeb is much more qualified than Condi Rice. He's at least won elected office, has a domestic policy and worked with the legislature on passing bills. I would say that being governor of a large state is much closer to being president than any other office in the US. As for GHWB being the most qualified since Carter I think you're selling Reagan short here. HE was a two term governor of the most populous state.
would you say then that powell was less qualified than JEB? his qualifications are roughly the same as condi's will be circa 2008. i generally agree about reagan, but when GHWB ran he'd been ambassador to china, head of the RNC, a US representative, head of the CIA, and 2 term VP. i think he pretty much trumps anyone but nixon in '68 on qualifications.
Just say no to nepotism...... http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/06/delay.reponse/index.html DeLay blasts media over report of payments to family From Ted Barrett CNN Washington Bureau Wednesday, April 6, 2005 Posted: 8:17 PM EDT (0017 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay defended his family Wednesday, saying newspaper articles about his wife and daughter and about his trip to Russia were "seedy" efforts by the "liberal media" to humiliate him. The New York Times reported Wednesday that DeLay's wife and daughter have been paid more than $500,000 since 2001 by DeLay's political action and campaign committees, according to a detailed review of disclosure statements filed with the Federal Election Commission and separate fund-raising records in Texas. The newspaper reports were the latest political controversies for DeLay. He has been admonished three times by the House Ethics Committee, and he faces possible indictment in Texas in connection with a campaign finance probe. The Times said the payments to DeLay's wife, Christine DeLay, and his only child, Dani DeLay Ferro, were described in the disclosure forms as "fund-raising fees," "campaign management" or "payroll," with no additional details about how they earned the money. "My wife and daughter have any right, just like any other American, to be employed and be compensated for their employment," DeLay said. "It's pretty disgusting, particularly when my wife and daughter are singled out and others are not, in similar situations in the Senate and as well as the House. "But it's just another seedy attempt by the liberal media to embarrass me." Separately, The Washington Post reported Wednesday that a six-day trip to Moscow in 1997 by DeLay when he was majority whip was underwritten by business interests lobbying in support of the Russian government. DeLay, R-Texas, said the trip was properly reported and paid for by a nonprofit group, but indicated he was unaware of the group's ties. "No member can be responsible for going into the bowels of researching what this organization, how it gets its money or how it's funded," he said. "The rules say if it's a legitimate organization that funds the trip and it's reported, it's legal." He said the Republican Party continues to back him. He said that at a GOP conference Wednesday morning he had "an incredible show of support. ... I know it disappoints you guys, but it's true." "I don't see any wavering of the support for the leader. I think a lot of members think he's taking arrows for all of us," Rep. Roy Blunt, third-ranking among GOP leaders, told The Associated Press. Since 1984, DeLay has represented counties near Houston, Texas in the House of Representatives.
Powell was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff which I would say is a more politically demanding and challenging job than provost of Stanford. Qualifications are very important but issues are also and on both counts I don't think Condi Rice would make a good candidate for the Republican party as it is. I think Powell is more qualified of the two but I don't think he would be best candidate for the Republican party now either. The way the Republican party is now the social conservatives wield inordinate power and its doubtful a moderate will be able to get the nomination.
the daily news says RudyG is running. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/298254p-255384c.html -- See Rudy. See Rudy run. With Rudy Giuliani often saying he'd probably run for office again, there were three options: governor, senator, President. When an aide said last week the first two were out, only one choice remains standing. Rudy's running for Prez. It's unofficial, of course, but there's no other way to read Giuliani's decision to skip the governor and senate races next year. Win or lose, running for either would have made it impossible to run for President in 2008. The development brought to mind a conversation with a Giuliani friend in 1988, when Giuliani was Manhattan U.S. attorney. Amid chatter even then that Giuliani had his eye on Washington, his friend argued he was already a national player. "If you had to name 100 people who have a chance to be President, Rudy's name would be on the list," the friend said then. When I reached the friend last week and reminded him of our conversation, he quickly said, "The list is now down to five." That sounds about right. In fact, Giuliani's already the front-runner for the GOP nomination. A recent Marist poll put him the top choice among likely candidates, with Arizona Sen. John McCain second. The same poll put Sen. Hillary Clinton as the top Democrat, meaning she and Giuliani could finally finish that 2000 Senate race aborted by his prostate cancer. Only now the stakes would be as high as they could be. Nobody gets an easy shot at the Oval Office, Giuliani included. Polls aside, he's to his party's left with support for gun control and gay rights. Having been married three times won't help. But the biggest barrier will be his pro-choice stance. As former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman notes in her book "It's My Party, Too," the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion remains the party's biggest fault line. Whitman writes that except for Gerald Ford in 1976, "every subsequent presidential and vice presidential nominee - Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle, Bob Dole, Jack Kemp, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney - supported efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade at the time they were nominated." Perhaps Giuliani could break that string, but he denied that he had even decided to try. "No, no," he told me by phone. "The only thing I've decided is not to rule it out." He said the decision would depend on "how important it is, now necessary it is." "That's how I decided to run for mayor, based on how much of a difference can you make. I wouldn't run just to get noticed, which some people do. I would do it because I thought I could make a big difference. You really have to believe in that to run." Would national security be a big issue again? "Given what's going on in the world, national security, foreign policy and the global economy will be big issues permanently. The old line from 1992, 'it's the economy, stupid,' meaning domestic issues, was permanently changed by Sept. 11." Will we be attacked again? "My answer is always we are safer, but we are not yet safe." When I asked whether the Democrats were moving too far left with Howard Dean as boss, his answer could serve as a warning to his own party, too. "Most elections are won in the middle. Especially in a presidential election, you need broad appeal to be successful." "Values are important," he added, "but who makes us feel safer is dominant...if you're a Democrat, you have to find some way to deal with that." His health? "My health is terrific, I feel great and I'm cancer free." Since Hillary is clearly running for President, we might finally get the Big Showdown? He laughed, long and loud. I take that as a yes.
Well maybe the Dems can nominate Rudy T and we can have two cancer surving Rudys running against each other. The debate would be great. Jim Lehreh: And the next question is for G. Followed by a 90 second rebuttal by T. I bet that's what they were saying on Laker's boards.
