Atlas Forum

Election Archive => 2008 Elections => Topic started by: Ebowed on March 02, 2005, 03:53:31 am



Title: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Ebowed on March 02, 2005, 03:53:31 am
Does anyone think South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (R) would make a good candidate in 2008 or possibly 2012?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Reaganfan on March 02, 2005, 04:13:26 am
I am a Sanford 2008 supporter. He will easily win re-election in 2006, is a governor, popular, Reaganesque, can get nomination. and can be a strong candidate.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 02, 2005, 04:20:22 am
He seems better than most Republicans, but I found this on him.


Quote
(Sanford) Says on Crossfire that Bush's budget provides "strong backing" for veterans.  But when Paul Begala points out that the budget actually slashes vet benefits to the extent that the VFW calls it "disgraceful, harmful proof that veterans are no longer a priority in this administration," Sanford mumbles, "Um...I haven't seen the details yet."  So...you love the budget but you don't know what's in it?  Meet today's winner of the Golden Waffle Award.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Erc on March 02, 2005, 06:55:32 am
He seems better than most Republicans, but I found this on him.


Quote
(Sanford) Says on Crossfire that Bush's budget provides "strong backing" for veterans.  But when Paul Begala points out that the budget actually slashes vet benefits to the extent that the VFW calls it "disgraceful, harmful proof that veterans are no longer a priority in this administration," Sanford mumbles, "Um...I haven't seen the details yet."  So...you love the budget but you don't know what's in it?  Meet today's winner of the Golden Waffle Award.

If the biggest problem this guy has is not knowing the particulars of a budget that isn't even his...

/me starts humming Hail to the Chief...


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 02, 2005, 07:01:56 am
He seems better than most Republicans, but I found this on him.


Quote
(Sanford) Says on Crossfire that Bush's budget provides "strong backing" for veterans.  But when Paul Begala points out that the budget actually slashes vet benefits to the extent that the VFW calls it "disgraceful, harmful proof that veterans are no longer a priority in this administration," Sanford mumbles, "Um...I haven't seen the details yet."  So...you love the budget but you don't know what's in it?  Meet today's winner of the Golden Waffle Award.

If the biggest problem this guy has is not knowing the particulars of a budget that isn't even his...

/me starts humming Hail to the Chief...

I don't even know the guy's positions yet. He seems to have the same old tired Republican positions on a lot of issues.

You do have to admit he got smacked down there.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Notre Dame rules! on March 02, 2005, 07:50:43 am
Don't be too hard on Sanford.  I would be very skeptical of ANYTHING that Begala says or quotes anyone else as saying.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: AuH2O on March 02, 2005, 12:31:58 pm
He was a cheerleader in college. Actually we made it to the I-AA national championship one year of his cheerleading, but lost to Georgia Southern.

Needless to say, he is a superb candidate, though for other reasons than his cheering.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: opebo on March 02, 2005, 12:35:46 pm
Politically, I find him to be more a Liberterian than Republican. 

What?  You mean he isn't a Born Again pro-Life gay-deploring fundamentalist?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: nick on March 02, 2005, 01:50:09 pm
I think he'd be unstoppable in the primary (every republican nominee since 1980 has won the south carolina primary and no one is gonna' beat sanford in the south carolina primary) and pretty darn close to unstoppable in the general.  Even if he doesnt have a strong record as governor he can run off the same platform Bush ran off of in 2000.  Southern, Charming, Christian, Republican, Governor.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: AuH2O on March 02, 2005, 02:02:09 pm
I think he'd be unstoppable in the primary (every republican nominee since 1980 has won the south carolina primary and no one is gonna' beat sanford in the south carolina primary) and and pretty darn close to unstoppable in the general.  Even if he doesnt have a strong record as governor he can run off the same platform Bush ran off of in 2000.  Southern, Charming, Christian, Republican, Governor.

And he tops Bush on all counts, one way or another. Well maybe not the Governor part since Texas is a lot bigger than SC.

Thing is, Iowa and NH and still very important. Without a decent showing in Iowa (or NH, but I think the former is more likely), the SC win might be discounted somewhat. Ultimately the question is: does the RNC pick him as their guy? And, if not, does he run anyway?

With establishment backing, Sanford is basically a lock for the nomination and an absolutely overpowering general election candidate, possibly as strong as Reagan. And Reagan was probably the strongest of the 20th century-- FDR only really won 1 election in a blowout, and Eisenhower had very weak opposition.

Honestly, I'm not even sure what I would tell Democrats to do if Sanford looks to be the nominee. Probably nominate Hillary and hope to at least hold the base together for down-ballot purposes.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: nick on March 02, 2005, 02:11:34 pm


Honestly, I'm not even sure what I would tell Democrats to do if Sanford looks to be the nominee. Probably nominate Hillary and hope to at least hold the base together for down-ballot purposes.

It would be tough, real tough.  I think the only thing the Democrats would have going for them is the American people will probably be hungry for a political change by 2008.  Would Sanford be impossible to beat? No.  But pretty darn close.  The only real blemish I see on his record is he doesnt support absolute right to gun ownership.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: AuH2O on March 02, 2005, 02:18:37 pm


Honestly, I'm not even sure what I would tell Democrats to do if Sanford looks to be the nominee. Probably nominate Hillary and hope to at least hold the base together for down-ballot purposes.

It would be tough, real tough.  I think the only thing the Democrats would have going for them is the American people will probably be hungry for a political change by 2008.  Would Sanford be impossible to beat? No.  But pretty darn close.  The only real blemish I see on his record is he doesnt support absolute right to gun ownership.

But the NRA will still back him over a Democrat, and it's not like he's pro-gun control. There are some issues he hasn't dealt with too much (obviously foreign policy, but also bioethical stuff). I imagine he's already thinking about his agenda for '08.

I mean, Bush ran as the reformer in 2004, and he was an incumbent. Sanford will easily run as an 'outsider' and I don't think the party label will hurt him, though certainly events could influence that.

Generally it would seem to me you would want a "new" Democrat to battle a "new" Republican... someone young, telegenic, intelligent, energetic etc. Do the Democrats have such a candidate? Not that I've seen or heard... I think the GOP just got kind of lucky to have a few terrific Governors/potential Presidential candidates. In '92 the Dems got lucky enough with Clinton, but haven't been able to replicate that.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: nick on March 02, 2005, 02:22:26 pm

Generally it would seem to me you would want a "new" Democrat to battle a "new" Republican... someone young, telegenic, intelligent, energetic etc. Do the Democrats have such a candidate? Not that I've seen or heard... I think the GOP just got kind of lucky to have a few terrific Governors/potential Presidential candidates. In '92 the Dems got lucky enough with Clinton, but haven't been able to replicate that.

Governor Brady Henry, he could almost Neutralize the Southern/MidWestern, Charming, Christian, thing.  I mean, the guy teaches his kid's sunday school class for christ sake.  Plus, the NRA would probably have to stay neutral in this race considering Henry has an A+ rating from the NRA.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Sam Spade on March 02, 2005, 02:33:43 pm

Generally it would seem to me you would want a "new" Democrat to battle a "new" Republican... someone young, telegenic, intelligent, energetic etc. Do the Democrats have such a candidate? Not that I've seen or heard... I think the GOP just got kind of lucky to have a few terrific Governors/potential Presidential candidates. In '92 the Dems got lucky enough with Clinton, but haven't been able to replicate that.

Governor Brady Henry, he could almost Neutralize the Southern/MidWestern, Charming, Christian, thing.  I mean, the guy teaches his kid's sunday school class for christ sake.  Plus, the NRA would probably have to stay neutral in this race considering Henry has an A+ rating from the NRA.

Very true.  Of course, the fact remains that it will be about a 1,000 times easier for Sanford to win the GOP nomination and get through the primaries than it will be for Henry to get the Dem nomination and get through the primaries.

Which really is too bad, frankly.  I'd like to have two fairly good nominees for Prez for a change.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: AuH2O on March 02, 2005, 02:39:06 pm
Henry has to be reelected first. He only got 43% in 2002 and... at the end of the day I tend to think less about specific states or regions and more about overall support. Sure, Henry would do better than Kerry in some places as compared to his national average-- but Kerry's national average wasn't too bad- 48% is way more than Clinton got in '92 and only a little less than in '96.

I haven't seen a lot of potential Dems speak, so some might be better candidates than meets the eye. But all of them face the dreaded Democratic Primary... can a moderate come out of that primary? I don't think so, not in 2008. Sanford doesn't need to change his views really, which not only makes him great primary material, but great general election material.

Brad Henry doesn't waltz around Oklahoma talking about upholding abortion rights. I think you might be surprised how fast his support would evaporate in conservative areas once he had to appeal to New Hampshire Democrats. The same applies for other moderates. The Democrats need someone liberal enough to keep a fairly consistent platform, while still not being too far left.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: nick on March 02, 2005, 02:39:50 pm

Very true.  Of course, the fact remains that it will be about a 1,000 times easier for Sanford to win the GOP nomination and get through the primaries than it will be for Henry to get the Dem nomination and get through the primaries.

Which really is too bad, frankly.  I'd like to have two fairly good nominees for Prez for a change.

The only real problems Henry will face is, he isnt a lock for re-election and fundraising.  The base actually loves the guy from what I can gather. He supports gun rights and the death penalty, but other than that he is pretty progressive.  He stands with the democrats on public education, health care, taxes etc. 


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: A18 on March 02, 2005, 02:44:37 pm
What state is Governor Henry from?

I don't think Sanford is as invincible as you guys are making him out to be. I support the man, and I think he'd make a good president, but it's not as if he's a lock to carry 40 states or anything, heh.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: nick on March 02, 2005, 02:53:25 pm
What state is Governor Henry from?

I don't think Sanford is as invincible as you guys are making him out to be. I support the man, and I think he'd make a good president, but it's not as if he's a lock to carry 40 states or anything, heh.

Henry is governor of Oklahoma.  Sanford isnt invincible, but he is the strongest potential 2008 candidate from either side.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 02, 2005, 03:25:49 pm
I think he'd be unstoppable in the primary (every republican nominee since 1980 has won the south carolina primary and no one is gonna' beat sanford in the south carolina primary) and pretty darn close to unstoppable in the general.  Even if he doesnt have a strong record as governor he can run off the same platform Bush ran off of in 2000.  Southern, Charming, Christian, Republican, Governor.

Winning the Iowa caucus didn't help Harkin much in '92.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 02, 2005, 05:14:50 pm
Politically, I find him to be more a Liberterian than Republican. 

What?  You mean he isn't a Born Again pro-Life gay-deploring fundamentalist?

No. He's secular and relatively pro-choice.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 02, 2005, 05:15:35 pm
Does anyone think South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (R) would make a good candidate in 2008 or possibly 2012?  I've met Sanford personally and I think he's a great guy.  Politically, I find him to be more a Liberterian than Republican.  Maybe he'd make a good VP pick.  That could change my standard endorsement of the Democratic ticket for the last twelve elections, assuming the presidential candidate on the Republican side is as acceptable as Sanford.

Sanford would be a great president... see my signature. ;)


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Ebowed on March 02, 2005, 05:20:20 pm
Politically, I find him to be more a Liberterian than Republican. 

What?  You mean he isn't a Born Again pro-Life gay-deploring fundamentalist?

No. He's secular and relatively pro-choice.
He might be secular politically, but personally he is Christian.  Also, he is not pro-choice.  He voted against the partial-birth abortion ban and transporting minors across a state to get an abortion (at least, according to Issues2000.org).


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 02, 2005, 05:22:01 pm
Politically, I find him to be more a Liberterian than Republican. 

What?  You mean he isn't a Born Again pro-Life gay-deploring fundamentalist?

No. He's secular and relatively pro-choice.
He might be secular politically, but personally he is Christian.  Also, he is not pro-choice.  He voted against the partial-birth abortion ban and transporting minors across a state to get an abortion (at least, according to Issues2000.org).

Well, that's fine as long as he doesn't try to impose his beliefs on everyone. And for a Republican from the Deep South... he is somewhat pro-choice.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 02, 2005, 05:23:10 pm
Dear God, NO!


The Governor of South Carolina?


Why don't we just advertise, "White Southerners Only"?


The only candidates I approve of have to meet three of the following crtiria:

1) Must be from north, midwest or pacific west.

2) Must be a woman or minority of some kind (i.e. black, hospanic, Catholic)

3) Must be or have been a governor, mayor, cabinet member or held some leadership possition.

4) Must be right-of-center on most issues


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Notre Dame rules! on March 02, 2005, 06:58:10 pm
SuperSoulty,

The only problem with you reasoning, is that it is difficult to find someone from categories 1 and 2 that meets the criteria of category 4.  The only one I can think of is Santorum.  Is that where you are trying to steer this?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: AuH2O on March 02, 2005, 07:57:15 pm
Dear God, NO!


The Governor of South Carolina?


Why don't we just advertise, "White Southerners Only"?


The only candidates I approve of have to meet three of the following crtiria:

1) Must be from north, midwest or pacific west.

2) Must be a woman or minority of some kind (i.e. black, hospanic, Catholic)

3) Must be or have been a governor, mayor, cabinet member or held some leadership possition.

4) Must be right-of-center on most issues

I'll just assume this is a joke.

Since every President has been a white male-- and a very large portion have been from the South-- soulty is either joking or not too bright.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 02, 2005, 09:59:14 pm
Dear God, NO!


The Governor of South Carolina?


Why don't we just advertise, "White Southerners Only"?


The only candidates I approve of have to meet three of the following crtiria:

1) Must be from north, midwest or pacific west.

2) Must be a woman or minority of some kind (i.e. black, hospanic, Catholic)

3) Must be or have been a governor, mayor, cabinet member or held some leadership possition.

4) Must be right-of-center on most issues

I'll just assume this is a joke.

Since every President has been a white male-- and a very large portion have been from the South-- soulty is either joking or not too bright.

No, it isn't a joke, and why should I give a sh**t about what you think.  I know that they have all been white males.  I'm saying that, unless they break that mold and match two of the other criteria, I won't support them in the primary.  Plain and simple.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 02, 2005, 10:08:00 pm
SuperSoulty,

The only problem with you reasoning, is that it is difficult to find someone from categories 1 and 2 that meets the criteria of category 4.  The only one I can think of is Santorum.  Is that where you are trying to steer this?

A list of serious canidates who meet three of the above mentioned criteria:

Condi Rice
Kay Baily Huchinson (I give her an exemption from #3)
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum
John McCain
Rudy Giuliani (ambiguous about #4, but....)
Tim Pawlenty
Tom Ridge
John Sununu (also exempt from #3)
Elizabeth Dole
Norm Coleman

That is not including those candidates who might arise, but are "unforseen" at the moment.

p.s. a late addition

Olympia Snowe


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Notre Dame rules! on March 02, 2005, 10:12:47 pm
Of those you have mentioned, only Romney and Santorum have realisitic chances, and by realistic, I don't necessarily mean good chances.

You're painting yourself into a corner 3 1/2 years before the election by being so narrow-minded.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 02, 2005, 10:21:42 pm
Of those you have mentioned, only Romney and Santorum have realisitic chances, and by realistic, I don't necessarily mean good chances.

You're painting yourself into a corner 3 1/2 years before the election by being so narrow-minded.

The Republican Party is going to paint itself into a corner by not leaving the south and looking at decent candidates who aren't white-breed, good-ole' boys, from Dixie or no-where-Kansas, if we stick with guys like Sanford and the like.  How much power does the governor of SC have anyway?

And no Senators, without good cause, and by good cause, I mean they have to be people who stand out, like Santorum, McCain, Huchinson, Dole, etc.  If Frist gets the nomination, I'll take a good look at who the other side is running.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 02, 2005, 10:23:34 pm
Anyone who thinks that a guy like Sanford will have national appeal is not being realistic.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: True Federalist on March 02, 2005, 10:26:57 pm
I cannot say that Sanford is a strong candidate at this point.  If he’s in the race, the South Carolina primary becomes meaningless except possibly as a contest for second place and every pundit will make certain that the voters know that.  He’ll need to do well in Iowa and/or New Hampshire in order to win the nomination.  He might be able to win New Hampshire, but I just don't think he has enough of a record to run on to win Iowa.  If he can manage to get some form of private school tax credit thru the legislature he’d have an accomplishment to run on, but I just cannot see school choice as being an issue that will galvanize GOP voters, and that tax credit does not look likely of passage at this point.  Sanford is a shoo-in for re-election in ’06.  The school choice issue would have to blow up far worse than I expect for the only Democrat who would have the possibility of beating Sanford to both run and win, as I expect that Inez is probably going to wait till ’10 to make a run at the Governor’s office.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 02, 2005, 10:29:28 pm
2) Must be a woman or minority of some kind (i.e. black, hospanic, Catholic)

Catholics are not a minority.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: True Federalist on March 02, 2005, 10:36:39 pm
How much power does the governor of SC have anyway?

Compared to most other governors, very little.  Besides a slew of other elected executives who are independent of him, there is the Budget and Control Board which makes the decisions on how to fine tune spending if less money is coming in or more is going out than was budgeted, and he has zero role in judicial appointments as that power is reserved to the Legislature alone.  And keep in mind that for the past two decades, a major issue has been governmental restructuring so as to place more power in the hands of the governor, so he actually has more power than either Thurmond or Hollings had when they were Governor.  The major power a SC Governor has is his bully pulpit, and Sanford gets a mized grade on his use of it.  He’s very good at connecting with the voters, but not so good at taking that connection and turning it into influence with the legislature.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 02, 2005, 10:42:28 pm
2) Must be a woman or minority of some kind (i.e. black, hospanic, Catholic)

Catholics are not a minority.

Ummmm... yes, we are.

Have we suddenly become the majority religion over night?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Notre Dame rules! on March 02, 2005, 10:51:36 pm
Yes, we Catholics are a minority, but at 24%, we rank just under white males, who come in at 35%.  Hmmm... That means that Southern white males probably come in at 10-15% of the population.   That sounds suspiciously like a minority to me, doesn't it to you Soulty.


By the way, if Frist get the nomination, I, too, will take a long hard look at the Democrat candidate.   


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 02, 2005, 10:54:39 pm
Yes, we Catholics are a minority, but at 24%, we rank just under white males, who come in at 35%.  Hmmm... That means that Southern white males probably come in at 10-15% of the population.   That sounds suspiciously like a minority to me, doesn't it to you Soulty.


You know what I mean.

Quote
By the way, if Frist get the nomination, I, too, will take a long hard look at the Democrat candidate. 

I'm glad that we agree on this point.  So, other than Allen, Frist or Sanford, who do you propose.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 02, 2005, 10:57:01 pm
2) Must be a woman or minority of some kind (i.e. black, hospanic, Catholic)

Catholics are not a minority.

Ummmm... yes, we are.

Have we suddenly become the majority religion over night?

Catholicism is not a religion. It is a branch of the majority religion though. It is also the largest branch, and thus a plurality and thus not a minority.

Am I a minority? There's a hell of a lot more Catholics in the US than ELCA Lutherans.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Notre Dame rules! on March 02, 2005, 10:59:06 pm
If you're a Red, and also a member of the ELCA, then you are a minority of a minority.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 02, 2005, 11:00:34 pm
2) Must be a woman or minority of some kind (i.e. black, hospanic, Catholic)

Catholics are not a minority.

Ummmm... yes, we are.

Have we suddenly become the majority religion over night?

Catholicism is not a religion. It is a branch of the majority religion though. It is also the largest branch, and thus a plurality and thus not a minority.

Am I a minority? There's a hell of a lot more Catholics in the US than ELCA Lutherans.

1) By your logic, then Blacks are not a minority or a race because they are just a branch of a larger human kind.

2) Protestants make up one group, Catholics the other.  There are far more Protestants in the country then there are Catholics.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: TCash101 on March 02, 2005, 11:01:25 pm
We are all minorities, whcih is why we all have an interest in protecting minority rights. If you don't care about rights that are being taken away or denied today, just wait a while, somebody'll come after yours before too long.

I know squat about Sanford. Have no clue what he looks like, and I pay attention. Not to say anything about him, necessarily, but the GOP is very patriarchical, they almost always give it to the guy whose turn it seems to be or who seems the most fatherly figure so to speak. This works for them a good amount of the time. Didn't work for Dole or Ford, and I'd argue Goldwater is about the only Repub since WWII who didn't fit this tradition. It worked for Nixon in 68, Reagan, Bush 41, and for Bush 43 because of family roots, and he sat 1996 out and waited for his turn.

That said, who seems most likely to be the inheritor of the GOP nomination? I'd argue McCain to a degree, except he's not GOP enough. Following that, I'd say Frist or Jeb. Frist because he has been pretty darn loyal to the Pres. Not that I like him at all.

Who do you all think is the one "whose turn it is"?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Notre Dame rules! on March 02, 2005, 11:02:08 pm
I like Romney, as well as Santorum.  I also like J.C Watts, though he probably needs to run for Gov of OK before he is ready to run for Pres.  I'm also a huge fan of Jeb, but '08 is going to be too soon for another Bush in the White House.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 02, 2005, 11:04:46 pm
2) Must be a woman or minority of some kind (i.e. black, hospanic, Catholic)

Catholics are not a minority.

Ummmm... yes, we are.

Have we suddenly become the majority religion over night?

Catholicism is not a religion. It is a branch of the majority religion though. It is also the largest branch, and thus a plurality and thus not a minority.

Am I a minority? There's a hell of a lot more Catholics in the US than ELCA Lutherans.

1) By your logic, then Blacks are not a minority or a race because they are just a branch of a larger human kind.

2) Protestants make up one group, Catholics the other.  There are far more Protestants in the country then there are Catholics.

1) You said largest religion, not largest religious group. If I said blacks were a minority species that'd be a valid analogy.

2) I think a group that includes me and Jerry Falwell is a little too broad, huh?

Besides, religion is not an inherant trait, one can change it. One can argue that every president is a minority then since a plurality of the population is independent and not a member of either of the two main parties. Thus all Democrats and Republicans are minorities.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 02, 2005, 11:10:21 pm
2) Must be a woman or minority of some kind (i.e. black, hospanic, Catholic)

Catholics are not a minority.

Ummmm... yes, we are.

Have we suddenly become the majority religion over night?

Catholicism is not a religion. It is a branch of the majority religion though. It is also the largest branch, and thus a plurality and thus not a minority.

Am I a minority? There's a hell of a lot more Catholics in the US than ELCA Lutherans.

1) By your logic, then Blacks are not a minority or a race because they are just a branch of a larger human kind.

2) Protestants make up one group, Catholics the other.  There are far more Protestants in the country then there are Catholics.

1) You said largest religion, not largest religious group. If I said blacks were a minority species that'd be a valid analogy.

2) I think a group that includes me and Jerry Falwell is a little too broad, huh?

Besides, religion is not an inherant trait, one can change it. One can argue that every president is a minority then since a plurality of the population is independent and not a member of either of the two main parties. Thus all Democrats and Republicans are minorities.

Obviously you know absolutly nothing of Catholic or ethinic politics.  I wouldn't expect you too, being from the midwest.  But I come from a highly ethnic area where Protestants are extremely anti-Catholic.  Not in an overt way, but there are clear differences between the groups.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 02, 2005, 11:11:25 pm
SuperSoulty,

The only problem with you reasoning, is that it is difficult to find someone from categories 1 and 2 that meets the criteria of category 4.  The only one I can think of is Santorum.  Is that where you are trying to steer this?

A list of serious canidates who meet three of the above mentioned criteria:

Condi Rice
Kay Baily Huchinson (I give her an exemption from #3)
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum
John McCain
Rudy Giuliani (ambiguous about #4, but....)
Tim Pawlenty
Tom Ridge
John Sununu (also exempt from #3)
Elizabeth Dole
Norm Coleman

That is not including those candidates who might arise, but are "unforseen" at the moment.

p.s. a late addition

Olympia Snowe

Most of those are pretty-right wing
Condi Rice - major major liar,
Hutchinson -  nice senate record to attack
Romney - can't win his homestate, lucky if he wins the 2006 governor race
Santorum - bigot, wants to destroy SS
McCain - old, cancer
Giuliani - too conservative for NY, too liberal for a national Republican primary
Pawlenty - does any one know about this guy?
Ridge - busted for politicizing Homeland Security
Sununu - one of many extremists on this list
Dole - her campaign went nowhere in 2000
Coleman - this guy has no principles


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Notre Dame rules! on March 02, 2005, 11:15:22 pm
If it goes to the guys that have 'paid their dues,' then it's probably McCain's or Rudy's turn. 

Since we didn't have any sort of challenge in '04, I'd say that it is wide open in '08.  I really do'nt think that McCain will even run.  I saw him on TV tonight and he didn't look well.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 02, 2005, 11:15:38 pm
SuperSoulty,

The only problem with you reasoning, is that it is difficult to find someone from categories 1 and 2 that meets the criteria of category 4.  The only one I can think of is Santorum.  Is that where you are trying to steer this?

A list of serious canidates who meet three of the above mentioned criteria:

Condi Rice
Kay Baily Huchinson (I give her an exemption from #3)
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum
John McCain
Rudy Giuliani (ambiguous about #4, but....)
Tim Pawlenty
Tom Ridge
John Sununu (also exempt from #3)
Elizabeth Dole
Norm Coleman

That is not including those candidates who might arise, but are "unforseen" at the moment.

p.s. a late addition

Olympia Snowe

Most of those are pretty-right wing
Condi Rice - major major liar,
Hutchinson -  nice senate record to attack
Romney - can't win his homestate, lucky if he wins the 2006 governor race
Santorum - bigot, wants to destroy SS
McCain - old, cancer
Giuliani - too conservative for NY, too liberal for a national Republican primary
Pawlenty - does any one know about this guy?
Ridge - busted for politicizing Homeland Security
Sununu - one of many extremists on this list
Dole - her campaign went nowhere in 2000
Coleman - this guy has no principles

Your "analysis" (assuming you are capable of such a thing) is laughable, and really doesn't warrent comment.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 02, 2005, 11:16:21 pm

Your "analysis" (assuming you are capable of such a thing) is laughable, and really doesn't warrent comment.

Yawn


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Ebowed on March 02, 2005, 11:16:43 pm
Coleman - this guy has no principles
Agreed.  That whole Senate race in 2002 was really ugly in Minnesota, and this was BEFORE Wellstone died.  Afterwards Coleman and conservatives all over the place were attacking Mondale because he wanted to privatize social security, even though Mondale did not, in fact, want to do this.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 02, 2005, 11:17:38 pm
People seem to be forgeting about the CNN poll that showed that Giuliani beats all the other choices for '08, by far, among Republicans (38% I think).  McCain comes in second (10% behind Rudy) and First comes in at 15%.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: nick on March 02, 2005, 11:18:38 pm
If it goes to the guys that have 'paid their dues,' then it's probably McCain's or Rudy's turn. 

Since we didn't have any sort of challenge in '04, I'd say that it is wide open in '08.  I really do'nt think that McCain will even run.  I saw him on TV tonight and he didn't look well.

I keep thinking Frist is a lock for some reason.  I dont have a detailed analysis why, but I really think hes gonna' win the primary.

edit: not really a lock, but you know what I mean, the favorite.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: nick on March 02, 2005, 11:19:39 pm
People seem to be forgeting about the CNN poll that showed that Giuliani beats all the other choices for '08, by far, among Republicans (38% I think).  McCain comes in second (10% behind Rudy) and First comes in at 15%.

Pure name recognition.  My sisters like 8 and she knows who Rudy Giuliani is.  My dog knows who Rudy Giuliani is.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 02, 2005, 11:20:00 pm


I keep thinking Frist is a lock for some reason.  I dont have a detailed analysis why, but I really think hes gonna' win the primary.

He's definitely right-wing and corrupt enough.
There may be a reason he's not pushing hard for SS, and he's reitiring in 2006.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 02, 2005, 11:26:16 pm
2) Must be a woman or minority of some kind (i.e. black, hospanic, Catholic)

Catholics are not a minority.

Ummmm... yes, we are.

Have we suddenly become the majority religion over night?

Catholicism is not a religion. It is a branch of the majority religion though. It is also the largest branch, and thus a plurality and thus not a minority.

Am I a minority? There's a hell of a lot more Catholics in the US than ELCA Lutherans.

1) By your logic, then Blacks are not a minority or a race because they are just a branch of a larger human kind.

2) Protestants make up one group, Catholics the other.  There are far more Protestants in the country then there are Catholics.

1) You said largest religion, not largest religious group. If I said blacks were a minority species that'd be a valid analogy.

2) I think a group that includes me and Jerry Falwell is a little too broad, huh?

Besides, religion is not an inherant trait, one can change it. One can argue that every president is a minority then since a plurality of the population is independent and not a member of either of the two main parties. Thus all Democrats and Republicans are minorities.

Obviously you know absolutly nothing of Catholic or ethinic politics.  I wouldn't expect you too, being from the midwest.  But I come from a highly ethnic area where Protestants are extremely anti-Catholic.  Not in an overt way, but there are clear differences between the groups.

um, Minnesota is plurality Catholic. You really think they don't exist up here? And I have NEVER seen any Catholic/Protestant religious turmoil.

You can give all the sob stories you want, but comparing John Kerry's strength in areas to the Catholic populations so virtually no correlations. Hell, you probably think I'm an "anti-Catholic bigot" (even though no such thing can exist) and I voted for one in November. Oppressed minority? Plus you think the few cases of discrimination that might occur don't happen to Protestants in largely Catholic areas?

The point also still stands that religion is not inherant and can be changed. Going by your logic, I could argue all Republicans and Democrats are minorities.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 02, 2005, 11:27:24 pm
If it goes to the guys that have 'paid their dues,' then it's probably McCain's or Rudy's turn. 

Since we didn't have any sort of challenge in '04, I'd say that it is wide open in '08.  I really do'nt think that McCain will even run.  I saw him on TV tonight and he didn't look well.

I keep thinking Frist is a lock for some reason.  I dont have a detailed analysis why, but I really think hes gonna' win the primary.

edit: not really a lock, but you know what I mean, the favorite.

good!


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 02, 2005, 11:30:38 pm
If it goes to the guys that have 'paid their dues,' then it's probably McCain's or Rudy's turn. 

Since we didn't have any sort of challenge in '04, I'd say that it is wide open in '08.  I really do'nt think that McCain will even run.  I saw him on TV tonight and he didn't look well.

I keep thinking Frist is a lock for some reason.  I dont have a detailed analysis why, but I really think hes gonna' win the primary.

edit: not really a lock, but you know what I mean, the favorite.

good!

Only good if he loses the general election. Very bad if he wins.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 02, 2005, 11:33:16 pm


I know squat about Sanford. Have no clue what he looks like, and I pay attention.




He's the guy in my signature.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 02, 2005, 11:34:57 pm
He's also pretty overrated, people are just judging him based on pure potential. Does he have a great record as governor? According to our two South Carolinan posters, both independents, it's hardly stellar.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 02, 2005, 11:35:47 pm

Your "analysis" (assuming you are capable of such a thing) is laughable, and really doesn't warrent comment.

Yawn

Fine, I'll lower myself to your level and answer you.

John McCain:  Though the cancer is a draw back, it is quite treatable and shows no signs of taking his life anytime soon.

Condi Rice: Obviously your analysis is highly subjective and is not shared by a large number of people.

Mitt Romney: From everything I have seen, he looks pretty secure for '06.  Also, thanks to something called "TV", media crosses state lines, and so People in media markets that serve or come out of Massechusetts are also familiar with Romney.  Even if he can't take Massechusetts, he can pull in NH and Maine and perhaps CT.  He would probably play well in states like PA and Michigan too.

Tom Ridge: Once again, your opinion is not shared by most people.  You have to learn how to think like normal people, even if you don't think the same things they do.  Only the Left 30% of the country thinks that he politicized homeland security, and they aren't going to win anyone an election.

Tim Pawlenty: Did anyone know who Bill Clinton was, or for that matter, Dukakis or Carter or Kennedy or Truman or Woodrow Wilson, before the start of their respective campaign seasons?

Elizabeth Dole:  She had no fund raising base or base of support  in 2000.  Now she does.

Rudy Giuliani:  Refere to the poll I mentioned.

John Sununu:  I don't even know where you got this idea.  He was chosen by Santorum to run against Smith precisly because he was a moderate and Smith was the "extremeist".

Rick Santorum:  Comments over-blown and taken out of context and the average person won't remember them by '08 anyway.  Any effort to remind the public will be wasted money by the Democrats.

Norm Coleman:  Why? Because he left the Democrats?  They didn't support him anyway.  He clearly has more principles than the Democrats who are trying to rip the sh**t out of his UN Oil for Food corruption investigation.

Kay Baily Huchinson:  This is another "says you".


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 02, 2005, 11:36:30 pm
He's also pretty overrated, people are just judging him based on pure potential. Does he have a great record as governor? According to our two South Carolinan posters, both independents, it's hardly stellar.

If he runs, I guarantee you that he'll win the nomination and probably the general too.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 02, 2005, 11:37:17 pm

Your "analysis" (assuming you are capable of such a thing) is laughable, and really doesn't warrent comment.

Yawn

Fine, I'll lower myself to your level and answer you.

John McCain:  Though the cancer is a draw back, it is quite treatable and shows no signs of taking his life anytime soon.

Condi Rice: Obviously your analysis is highly subjective and is not shared by a large number of people.

Mitt Romney: From everything I have seen, he looks pretty secure for '06.  Also, thanks to something called "TV", media crosses state lines, and so People in media markets that serve or come out of Massechusetts are also familiar with Romney.  Even if he can't take Massechusetts, he can pull in NH and Maine and perhaps CT.  He would probably play well in states like PA and Michigan too.

Tom Ridge: Once again, your opinion is not shared by most people.  You have to learn how to think like normal people, even if you don't think the same things they do.  Only the Left 30% of the country thinks that he politicized homeland security, and they aren't going to win anyone an election.

Tim Pawlenty: Did anyone know who Bill Clinton was, or for that matter, Dukakis or Carter or Kennedy or Truman or Woodrow Wilson, before the start of their respective campaign seasons?

Elizabeth Dole:  She had no fund raising base or base of support  in 2000.  Now she does.

Rudy Giuliani:  Refere to the poll I mentioned.

John Sununu:  I don't even know where you got this idea.  He was chosen by Santorum to run against Smith precisly because he was a moderate and Smith was the "extremeist".

Rick Santorum:  Comments over-blown and taken out of context and the average person won't remember them by '08 anyway.  Any effort to remind the public will be wasted money by the Democrats.

Norm Coleman:  Why? Because he left the Democrats?  They didn't support him anyway.  He clearly has more principles than the Democrats who are trying to rip the sh**t out of his UN Oil for Food corruption investigation.

Kay Baily Huchinson:  This is another "says you".


Condi isn't a liar? I stopped reading right there.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Notre Dame rules! on March 02, 2005, 11:43:20 pm
Jfern,

We're all partisan her, but you're a total hack.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Notre Dame rules! on March 02, 2005, 11:46:44 pm
The last time an unknown and undistinguished Governor from a small Southern state ran for President, he was elected as the 42nd President of the United States.  Don't underestimate Governors from small Southern states.  You do so at your peril.  Trust me, I know.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: TCash101 on March 02, 2005, 11:57:59 pm
But Clinton was a Democrat. We aren't as patriarchical as the GOP. Unknowns rarely win the GOP nod. But the GOP base pays attention enough that McCain and Giuliani are toast, no amount of name recognition is going to hide the fact that Giuliani is NOT in concert with red state values. He's a northeatern liberal on social issues. He's a flagrant adulterer.

I see Frist as conservative enough and as known enough to pull it off. Don't get me wrong, I dislike the guy. Did you all know that Frist got into politics around the same time his family's company (HCA) was being investigated (and eventually fined big time) for fraudulently making Medicare/aid (not sure if one or both) claims?? He hadn't even registered to vote until he was in his 40s.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: riceowl on March 02, 2005, 11:58:20 pm
-

The last time a unknown Southern DEMOCRAT governor ran for president, he was elected...

Now what if an undistinguished Northern REPUBLICAN governor ran...

Pawlenty and Romney, I'm looking at you.....


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 03, 2005, 12:00:23 am
-

The last time a unknown Southern DEMOCRAT governor ran for president, he was elected...

Now what if an undistinguished Northern REPUBLICAN governor ran...

Pawlenty and Romney, I'm looking at you.....

Romney's a Mormon, and Pawlenty is a weird bastard.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: TCash101 on March 03, 2005, 12:03:50 am
Sanford looks like that actor from JAWS. What was his name??


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: nick on March 03, 2005, 12:04:23 am

Romney's a Mormon, and Pawlenty is a weird bastard.

LOL, your set on Sanford arent you Bob?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: nick on March 03, 2005, 12:05:05 am
Sanford looks like that actor from JAWS. What was his name??

And he looks like he fell asleep in a tanning bed....Just kidding, but he is really dark.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 03, 2005, 12:05:16 am

Romney's a Mormon, and Pawlenty is a weird bastard.

LOL, your set on Sanford arent you Bob?

Hell yes :D. He's the only Republican I would vote for.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Notre Dame rules! on March 03, 2005, 12:05:32 am
I know of the controversy that surrounded HCA, but I've never heard of any direct connection to Frist concerning wrongdoing in the company.  Wasn't Gov Bredesen also involved in HCA?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 12:07:14 am
2) Must be a woman or minority of some kind (i.e. black, hospanic, Catholic)

Catholics are not a minority.

Ummmm... yes, we are.

Have we suddenly become the majority religion over night?

Catholicism is not a religion. It is a branch of the majority religion though. It is also the largest branch, and thus a plurality and thus not a minority.

Am I a minority? There's a hell of a lot more Catholics in the US than ELCA Lutherans.

1) By your logic, then Blacks are not a minority or a race because they are just a branch of a larger human kind.

2) Protestants make up one group, Catholics the other.  There are far more Protestants in the country then there are Catholics.

1) You said largest religion, not largest religious group. If I said blacks were a minority species that'd be a valid analogy.

2) I think a group that includes me and Jerry Falwell is a little too broad, huh?

Besides, religion is not an inherant trait, one can change it. One can argue that every president is a minority then since a plurality of the population is independent and not a member of either of the two main parties. Thus all Democrats and Republicans are minorities.

Obviously you know absolutly nothing of Catholic or ethinic politics.  I wouldn't expect you too, being from the midwest.  But I come from a highly ethnic area where Protestants are extremely anti-Catholic.  Not in an overt way, but there are clear differences between the groups.

um, Minnesota is plurality Catholic. You really think they don't exist up here? And I have NEVER seen any Catholic/Protestant religious turmoil.

You can give all the sob stories you want, but comparing John Kerry's strength in areas to the Catholic populations so virtually no correlations. Hell, you probably think I'm an "anti-Catholic bigot" (even though no such thing can exist) and I voted for one in November. Oppressed minority? Plus you think the few cases of discrimination that might occur don't happen to Protestants in largely Catholic areas?

The point also still stands that religion is not inherant and can be changed. Going by your logic, I could argue all Republicans and Democrats are minorities.

Ummm... according to my research Minnesota is less than a quarter Catholic.  I don't know this for sure, but something tells me that, seeing as this is the midwest, most of those Catholics are German Catholics, and thus, no tmuch different from their neighbors.

Quite a different story when you have an area liek mine where a vast majority of Catholics are Italian, Irish or Polish and they are out numbered by English, German and Scottish Protestants.

Kerry didn't poll high in high Catholic areas because ethnic Catholics didn't identify with him.  Plain and simple.

Why can't an anti-Catholic bigot exist?

And, no, I have never seen much Catholic on Protestant bigotry, cause we don't really care much.  Catholics recongnize the fact that we are all Christians.  Most Protestants don't even consider Catholics to be Christians, rather, we are some wierd cult that worships the Pope and Mary.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: TCash101 on March 03, 2005, 12:10:31 am
No, I don't know of a direct link between Frist and his brother's wrongdoings. Just seemed funny that one day he didn't care about politics wnough to register to vote and then he's running for senate around the same time his brother's in hot water with the feds.

 I knew Bredesen was in the health care industry, never heard he was with HCA. Bredesen had his own company.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Notre Dame rules! on March 03, 2005, 12:13:40 am
Oops!  My bad.  I guess I'm just linking the two due to their business similarities. 

Not bashing Bredesen in any way.  In fact, I kinda like him!


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: nick on March 03, 2005, 12:14:50 am
Do you Tennesee guy's think Bredesen has thought about dropping out of the gubernatorial race and going after the open senate seat?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 03, 2005, 12:16:10 am
Oops!  My bad.  I guess I'm just linking the two due to their business similarities. 

Not bashing Bredesen in any way.  In fact, I kinda like him!

It's ironic that Democrats hate Bredesen and Republicans like him. ;)



Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: nick on March 03, 2005, 12:17:09 am
Oops!  My bad.  I guess I'm just linking the two due to their business similarities. 

Not bashing Bredesen in any way.  In fact, I kinda like him!

It's ironic that Democrats hate Bredesen and Republicans like him. ;)



I dont hate him.  From what I can gather he's just tackling problems in a non-partisan way, I like that.   Plus, hes setting himself up for an easy re-election.  Its gonna' be interesting to see how he govern's his second term. 


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 03, 2005, 12:17:56 am
Oops!  My bad.  I guess I'm just linking the two due to their business similarities. 

Not bashing Bredesen in any way.  In fact, I kinda like him!

It's ironic that Democrats hate Bredesen and Republicans like him. ;)



I dont hate him.  From what I can gather he's just tackling problems in a non-partisan way, I like that.

Bredesen for VP would be awesome. :)


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: AuH2O on March 03, 2005, 12:18:20 am
Frist, the robotic and dull, cat-killing HMO operator, is not going to win the nomination.

I mean, I can't believe someone actually calls themselves a Republican after playing the victim card FOR BEING CATHOLIC! That is unbelievable. Truly remarkable victimology.

And, on top of that, he won't vote for his own party unless they nominate a yankee. Incredible. Especially since his state keeps voting for Democrats... I guess they deserve the reward. Makes sense to me, nominate someone from states that vote against your party.

I mean, what's next? Soulty won't vote Republican unless he personally gets the nomination? I mean, everyone else is a "good 'ol boy" even if their young, professional, and honest. hmm.

You know, we don't need trash like soulty in the party. Just don't need the drama. I'm not sure when people with no influence and no brain starting thinking they call the shots. I guess the Democrats are the party of the people, so soulty will have to support their white male if the GOP should nominate a white male.

What an asshole. Screw the Northeast- that's the only reason our government is full of socialists to begin with. And their thinking has apparently gotten to dumby soulty- who cries out for affirmative action to appease his childish whims.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Notre Dame rules! on March 03, 2005, 12:20:00 am
No, the ticket to the White House is thru the State House.  Besides,Harold Ford wants to run for Senate on the Dem side.  He can't win, but he is determined to run.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: TCash101 on March 03, 2005, 12:20:12 am
No way! Bredesen is a manager, and a pretty good one. He's probably pleased or scared enough Repubs that he won't have a serious competetor for gov. The Senate race will have half a dozen electable Repubs vying for the nomination. I do hope some big name Dems are reconsidering running due to the Ford family saga. I like Harold Ford Jr and would support him, but hius uncle is an awful, awful man who should be in jail. The scandal will only hurt Ford Jr., even if it shouldn't.

Bredesen will stay put. I'd bet big money on it. I wish he were more vocal on social issues, but otherwise, he's a good guy.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 03, 2005, 12:21:22 am
No, the ticket to the White House is thru the State House.  Besides,Harold Ford wants to run for Senate on the Dem side.  He can't win, but he is determined to run.

You guys need to start using quotes. There are multiple conversations going on, and it tends to get a little confusing if you don't quote what you're responding to.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Sam Spade on March 03, 2005, 12:22:20 am
I've always liked Breseden and I still do, but I'm an pretty conservative Democrat anyway.  :)

I can imagine the real left-wing wackos hating him.  Normal Democrats should like him.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 03, 2005, 12:24:24 am
I've always liked Breseden and I still do, but I'm an pretty conservative Democrat anyway.  :)

I can imagine the real left-wing wackos hating him.  Normal Democrats should like him.

Yep. The DINO's of the left would vote Green if Bredesen was nominated.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Notre Dame rules! on March 03, 2005, 12:25:32 am
Bredesen held out against raising taxes, especially creating an income tax, when everyone in his party--and our former GOP Gov were clammoring for it.  

Two years later, we are back in the black, the State is once again in surplus, and he is determined to solve our TNCare (medicaid) problem.

He promised to run the state much more like a business than a slush fund for politicians, and he has delivered so far.  Can't knock that!


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: nick on March 03, 2005, 12:26:31 am
The far left at some of my Democratic boards are bitching they will vote green if any of the follow receive the nomination... Bredesen, Warner, Bayh, Richardson.  They must really hate winning.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Sam Spade on March 03, 2005, 12:28:41 am
I've always liked Breseden and I still do, but I'm an pretty conservative Democrat anyway.  :)

I can imagine the real left-wing wackos hating him.  Normal Democrats should like him.

Yep. The DINO's of the left would vote Green if Bredesen was nominated.

The previous Republican governors of Tennessee were disasters. 

Bredesen has gone in there, cleaned up things, and turned Tennessee around in general.

I would support a man like that all the time, regardless of political affliation.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 03, 2005, 12:29:16 am
The far left at some of my Democratic boards are bitching they will vote green if any of the follow receive the nomination... Bredesen, Warner, Bayh, Richardson.  They must really hate winning.

People like that are everywhere where I live. I guess they'd rather vote for that ing idiot Nader than win. More power to them! They're the reason the Democrats are completely out of power.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 03, 2005, 12:29:50 am
I've always liked Breseden and I still do, but I'm an pretty conservative Democrat anyway.  :)

I can imagine the real left-wing wackos hating him.  Normal Democrats should like him.

Yep. The DINO's of the left would vote Green if Bredesen was nominated.

The previous Republican governors of Tennessee were disasters. 

Bredesen has gone in there, cleaned up things, and turned Tennessee around in general.

I would support a man like that all the time, regardless of political affliation.

Same here.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Notre Dame rules! on March 03, 2005, 12:32:09 am
That attitude makes no sense whatsoever.  That's like anti-NAFTA GOPers voting for Buchanan, a thouroughly wasted vote.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 12:32:45 am
Frist, the robotic and dull, cat-killing HMO operator, is not going to win the nomination.

I mean, I can't believe someone actually calls themselves a Republican after playing the victim card FOR BEING CATHOLIC! That is unbelievable. Truly remarkable victimology.

And, on top of that, he won't vote for his own party unless they nominate a yankee. Incredible. Especially since his state keeps voting for Democrats... I guess they deserve the reward. Makes sense to me, nominate someone from states that vote against your party.

I mean, what's next? Soulty won't vote Republican unless he personally gets the nomination? I mean, everyone else is a "good 'ol boy" even if their young, professional, and honest. hmm.

You know, we don't need trash like soulty in the party. Just don't need the drama. I'm not sure when people with no influence and no brain starting thinking they call the shots. I guess the Democrats are the party of the people, so soulty will have to support their white male if the GOP should nominate a white male.

What an asshole. Screw the Northeast- that's the only reason our government is full of socialists to begin with. And their thinking has apparently gotten to dumby soulty- who cries out for affirmative action to appease his childish whims.

Thank you for misinterpriting what I said.  I said "I won't support anyone in the primary who doesn't match that discription.  Not the general election.

And, once again, anti-Catholic bigotry does exist.  It is very real.  You know why you don't notice it?  Because you aren't Catholic.  If you were, you would notice.  I don't know if I can be polite about this anymore.

Now, dumby AuH2O apparently wants to nominate another Goldwater who will lose to the Democrats in a landslide and take the Senate with him.  Yeah, that's not going bring on more socialism or anything.

Clearly, you seem to have missed the fact that we live in a country.  This country is called America.  In America, we have 50 states.  There are states that are not South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi.  Some of these states voted for Bush.  Some of them didn't, but came very close, like New Hampshire, PA, Michigan, Oregon, Wisconsin and Minnesota.  Some of these states might go GOP in '08 if we pick the right candidate.  I'm pretty sure that that candidate is not Mark Sanford, Governor of Nothing and Protector of the Same.  I'm pretty sure that a good candidate from a very Liberal state like MA, like, say, Mitt Romney, might have enough appeal to turn a lot of states over to us.  I'm also pretty sure that "punishing" certain states for not voting for you is a stupid strategy that will only increase the partisan divide in this country.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 12:34:04 am
The far left at some of my Democratic boards are bitching they will vote green if any of the follow receive the nomination... Bredesen, Warner, Bayh, Richardson.  They must really hate winning.

I'm starting to think that certain elements of my party want to acctually make a race of it, when we need not.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 03, 2005, 12:34:18 am


Now, dumby AuH2O apparently wants to nominate another Goldwater who will lose to the Democrats in a landslide and take the Senate with him.  Yeah, that's not going bring on more socialism or anything.



Sanford is far from being a Goldwater. He'd do better in the North than most other Republicans.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Sam Spade on March 03, 2005, 12:35:41 am
Mitt Romney would lose.  The country's not going to elect a Mormon.  I wouldn't vote to elect a Mormon, frankly.

Also, he'd lose certain key states in the South because he's a Yankee, like Louisiana, if the Dems run anyone who simply shuts up on social issues.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: nick on March 03, 2005, 12:37:05 am
Soulty,

Whats wrong with winning elections the way ya'll are winning them right now?  Sh**t, Id do anything to be in the position the GOP is in right now when it comes to elections and political power.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 12:39:02 am


Now, dumby AuH2O apparently wants to nominate another Goldwater who will lose to the Democrats in a landslide and take the Senate with him.  Yeah, that's not going bring on more socialism or anything.



Sanford is far from being a Goldwater. He'd do better in the North than most other Republicans.

Are you telling me that you honestly believe Sanford can be elected in Pennsylvania and Michigan?  I only know of him because I know politics.  In 2008, he will be 6 year governor of South Carolina.  Why not run Senator Thune, if we are looking to gain nothing by the virtue of our candidate?

In the meantime, bringing forward the governor of South Carolina will be a huge sign to the rest of the country that, inspite of having tons of great candidates from all over the country, we went with this guy, because he plays well with Evangelical Southerners.

What kind of message does that send?

It tells me that we are not a National Party.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 03, 2005, 12:40:14 am
Whats wrong with winning elections the way ya'll are winning them right now?  sh**t, Id do anything to be in the position the GOP is in politically across this country.

Except the GOP always seems to end up on top somehow. If the situation was reversed- if Gore was in the White House, both Houses of Congress were Democratic, and the Supreme Court majority was liberal- the GOP would stage a "Republican Revolution" like in '94 and kick them all out. They're just much better at politics.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 03, 2005, 12:42:51 am
Ummm... according to my research Minnesota is less than a quarter Catholic.

less than a quarter is still a plurality. There's over 1.2 million Catholics in Minnesota. The second highest group is my denomination, ELCA, which has 850k.

I don't know this for sure, but something tells me that, seeing as this is the midwest, most of those Catholics are German Catholics, and thus, no tmuch different from their neighbors.

yes they are mostly German, and I guess they are not much different from their neighbors since they're white. But among whites, how are Germans and Scandinavians basically the same?  This is from someone who is 3/4 Scandinavian and 1/4 German.

Quite a different story when you have an area liek mine where a vast majority of Catholics are Italian, Irish or Polish and they are out numbered by English, German and Scottish Protestants.

Have you ever been to St. Paul?

And even if people are still fighting among ethnicities when in fact almost everyone considers all of the above group as simply "white", do you really think the same stuff doesn't happen to English, German and Scottish Protestants in heavily Italian, Irish or Polish Catholic areas? And why do they get along worse than Scandinavian Protestants and German Catholics?

Kerry didn't poll high in high Catholic areas because ethnic Catholics didn't identify with him.  Plain and simple.

Or because hardly anyone cares about this when they vote anymore.

Why can't an anti-Catholic bigot exist?

Can an anti-Democrat or anti-Republican one exist?

And, no, I have never seen much Catholic on Protestant bigotry, cause we don't really care much.  Catholics recongnize the fact that we are all Christians.

Read the beliefnet forums sometime.

Most Protestants don't even consider Catholics to be Christians, rather, we are some wierd cult that worships the Pope and Mary.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard you say. Most? You're the one who earlier talked about Catholicism as a seperate religion, and I corrected you on it. I have never said said Catholics are not Christian. I actually called jmfcst on this, even though it was really just a cheap shot, and even he denied he ever said so. I have never met anyone in real life who has claimed this, and know of no one outside of a few loons who think Jack Chick is right. If you think that represents the vast majority of Protestants, you are clearly deluded indeed.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 12:42:58 am
Soulty,

Whats wrong with winning elections the way ya'll are winning them right now?  Sh**t, Id do anything to be in the position the GOP is in right now when it comes to elections and political power.

What's wrong?  A 2% shift in the polls means that we lose.  That's whats wrong.  That isn't a mandate.  That isn't even a lead.

We could lose if we appear to be going further right and further south.

Ohio is not safe.  Florida is not safe.  Iowa is not safe.  New Mexico is not safe.  Nevada is not safe.

By reaching out, however, we can become a true majority party.  It would not take much for us to win comfortably in PA, MN, WI and OR, but for some reason, the retroverts don't want to do it.  They are getting way to comfortable with where we are.

If we don't do it right, 1996 is right around the corner.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 03, 2005, 12:43:08 am


Now, dumby AuH2O apparently wants to nominate another Goldwater who will lose to the Democrats in a landslide and take the Senate with him.  Yeah, that's not going bring on more socialism or anything.



Sanford is far from being a Goldwater. He'd do better in the North than most other Republicans.

Are you telling me that you honestly believe Sanford can be elected in Pennsylvania and Michigan?  I only know of him because I know politics.  In 2008, he will be 6 year governor of South Carolina.  Why not run Senator Thune, if we are looking to gain nothing by the virtue of our candidate?

In the meantime, bringing forward the governor of South Carolina will be a huge sign to the rest of the country that, inspite of having tons of great candidates from all over the country, we went with this guy, because he plays well with Evangelical Southerners.

What kind of message does that send?

It tells me that we are not a National Party.

No, he couldn't win Michigan or Pennsylvania. However, he could win New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and possibly even Oregon.

He doesn't play particularly well with evangelicals- he's pretty secular. And I hate to tell you this, but the GOP isn't a truly national party anymore. Neither are the Democrats.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Notre Dame rules! on March 03, 2005, 12:43:24 am
Sen Sam,

 48% of the people voted for a conservative Jew in 2000 (at least as a Veep candidate).  Who would have ever thought that that would happen?  

I won't vote for Romney if he shows signs that he wants to be President of Mormon America.  I won't vote for Santorum if he show signs that he wants to be President of Catholic America.  However, If they want to be President of all America, then I see no problem with their religion.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 12:44:53 am


Now, dumby AuH2O apparently wants to nominate another Goldwater who will lose to the Democrats in a landslide and take the Senate with him.  Yeah, that's not going bring on more socialism or anything.



Sanford is far from being a Goldwater. He'd do better in the North than most other Republicans.

Are you telling me that you honestly believe Sanford can be elected in Pennsylvania and Michigan?  I only know of him because I know politics.  In 2008, he will be 6 year governor of South Carolina.  Why not run Senator Thune, if we are looking to gain nothing by the virtue of our candidate?

In the meantime, bringing forward the governor of South Carolina will be a huge sign to the rest of the country that, inspite of having tons of great candidates from all over the country, we went with this guy, because he plays well with Evangelical Southerners.

What kind of message does that send?

It tells me that we are not a National Party.

No, he couldn't win Michigan or Pennsylvania. However, he could win New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and possibly even Oregon.

He doesn't play particularly well with evangelicals- he's pretty secular. And I hate to tell you this, but the GOP isn't a truly national party anymore. Neither are the Democrats.

So, simply saying "niether are the Democrats" is an good enough excuse for not doing it?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 03, 2005, 12:45:27 am
Sen Sam,

 48% of the people voted for a conservative Jew in 2000 (at least as a Veep candidate).  Who would have ever thought that that would happen? 

I won't vote for Romney if he shows signs that he wants to be President of Mormon America.  I won't vote for Santorum if he show signs that he wants to be President of Catholic America.  However, If they want to be President of all America, then I see no problem with their religion.

Mormons don't believe in separation of church and state. Just look at Utah, a state wholly owned and operated by the LDS.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 03, 2005, 12:46:36 am


So, simply saying "niether are the Democrats" is an good enough excuse for not doing it?

I'm saying that the GOP doesn't particularly need to carry states in the Northeast, which is true.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 03, 2005, 12:47:31 am


Now, dumby AuH2O apparently wants to nominate another Goldwater who will lose to the Democrats in a landslide and take the Senate with him.  Yeah, that's not going bring on more socialism or anything.



Sanford is far from being a Goldwater. He'd do better in the North than most other Republicans.

Are you telling me that you honestly believe Sanford can be elected in Pennsylvania and Michigan?  I only know of him because I know politics.  In 2008, he will be 6 year governor of South Carolina.  Why not run Senator Thune, if we are looking to gain nothing by the virtue of our candidate?

In the meantime, bringing forward the governor of South Carolina will be a huge sign to the rest of the country that, inspite of having tons of great candidates from all over the country, we went with this guy, because he plays well with Evangelical Southerners.

What kind of message does that send?

It tells me that we are not a National Party.

No, he couldn't win Michigan or Pennsylvania. However, he could win New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and possibly even Oregon.

He doesn't play particularly well with evangelicals- he's pretty secular. And I hate to tell you this, but the GOP isn't a truly national party anymore. Neither are the Democrats.

So, simply saying "niether are the Democrats" is an good enough excuse for not doing it?

it's a valid excuse because neither party can be one. We're never going to suceed in rural Nebraska or Mississippi, which I can accept. Now you need to accept that you'll never suceed in Minneapolis or San Francisco.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 12:49:14 am


So, simply saying "niether are the Democrats" is an good enough excuse for not doing it?

I'm saying that the GOP doesn't particularly need to carry states in the Northeast, which is true.

So "we don't have too" is a good enough excuse then?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Sam Spade on March 03, 2005, 12:49:54 am
Sen Sam,

 48% of the people voted for a conservative Jew in 2000 (at least as a Veep candidate).  Who would have ever thought that that would happen? 

I won't vote for Romney if he shows signs that he wants to be President of Mormon America.  I won't vote for Santorum if he show signs that he wants to be President of Catholic America.  However, If they want to be President of all America, then I see no problem with their religion.

Sorry, I just don't like Mormons.  They're just a cult to me, if less crazy than the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Not a religious bigot at all, I happen to be fairly religious myself.  But I do take that into account.

To Super:  The two problem spots with the whole GOP strategy right now are Ohio and Florida.  Most of the other states are much less important.   Even the Southwest is less important fundamentally, though I'd wonder how Sanford would fare in Colorado.

Sanford will make sure Florida is covered.  I'm sure in that situation there are ways for the GOP to take care of Ohio.

National parties are a very rare thing in American history; it probably won't happen again any time in the near future.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Notre Dame rules! on March 03, 2005, 12:50:14 am
Neither party cares to be a national party anymore.  Both are looking to be a party of 270 EV and some change.  Oh yeah, adn getting a few million more polular votes to make it appear to be a mandate.  

I'm not knocking the strategy.   That's just the way it is.

So far, it has worked in our favor.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 03, 2005, 12:50:58 am


So, simply saying "niether are the Democrats" is an good enough excuse for not doing it?

I'm saying that the GOP doesn't particularly need to carry states in the Northeast, which is true.

So "we don't have too" is a good enough excuse then?

You don't have to carry Vermont to win. Does that really bother you then that you have no chance of doing so?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: The Duke on March 03, 2005, 12:51:18 am
I like Sanford on some level from what I know.  He's a fine Governor and any state would be lucky to have him.

But I will not be supporting him in the primary, and and I don't believe he will win that primary.

He is a Governor and has no foreign policy experience.  Run down the GOP nominees in the Cold War, a similar environment to the war on terror:

1948-Thomas Dewey, Governor
1952-Dwight Eisenhower, former General
1956-Dwight eisenhower, incumbent President
1960-Richard Nixon, incumbent VP
1964-Barry Goldwater, Senator
1968-Richard Nixon, former VP
1972-Richard Nixon, incumbent President
1976-Gerald Ford, incumbentn President
1980-Ronald Reagan, Governor
1984-Ronald Reagan, incumbent President
1988-George Bush, incumbent VP

Only Dewey and Reagan came without direct foreign affairs experience.  Of those, Dewey had demonstrated his foreign affairs and campaigning skills in 1944 against impossible odds.  Reagan had shown his foreign affairs experience in the 1976 primary, and spent the four years after that ceaselessly studying foreign policy issues so he could be a credible alternative to his rivals in 1980.

The GOP will not nominate a candidate who has no foreign policy experience, this means a Senator will almost certainly get the nomination.  Names like Frist, Santorum, Coleman, Hutchison, and McCain are ones we should look at.  I believe Rice will not run, as she has not once expressed any interest in doing so.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 03, 2005, 12:52:32 am
Are there any countries that do have true "national parties" that aren't one party dominated states anyway?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 03, 2005, 12:54:06 am


So, simply saying "niether are the Democrats" is an good enough excuse for not doing it?

I'm saying that the GOP doesn't particularly need to carry states in the Northeast, which is true.

So "we don't have too" is a good enough excuse then?

Yes. Ignore the Northeast, and pour resources into the West, and the Midwestern battlegrounds.

The Democrats should ignore the South, and concentrate on the swing states. There's no need for a "national" strategy on either side.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Notre Dame rules! on March 03, 2005, 12:54:28 am
Are there any countries that do have true "national parties" that aren't one party dominated states anyway?



I have to agree with akota on this one.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: nick on March 03, 2005, 12:56:42 am
Ford made some good points.  Post 9/11 you gotta' have some foreign policy credentials under your belt or its gonna' kill your campaign.  This is one reason Im not to thrilled about Mark Warner.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 03, 2005, 12:59:30 am
I mean, I can't believe someone actually calls themselves a Republican after playing the victim card FOR BEING CATHOLIC! That is unbelievable. Truly remarkable victimology.

I'll ignore the rest of the garbage you wrote and say that for here I actually do agree with you. Anyone who thinks that being a Catholic makes an oppressed and discriminated against minority in this country, and the vast majority of Protestants think Catholicism is a Mary worshipping cult definately has a victim complex.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 12:59:42 am
Ummm... according to my research Minnesota is less than a quarter Catholic.

less than a quarter is still a plurality. There's over 1.2 million Catholics in Minnesota. The second highest group is my denomination, ELCA, which has 850k.

I don't know this for sure, but something tells me that, seeing as this is the midwest, most of those Catholics are German Catholics, and thus, no tmuch different from their neighbors.

yes they are mostly German, and I guess they are not much different from their neighbors since they're white. But among whites, how are Germans and Scandinavians basically the same?  This is from someone who is 3/4 Scandinavian and 1/4 German.

Quite a different story when you have an area liek mine where a vast majority of Catholics are Italian, Irish or Polish and they are out numbered by English, German and Scottish Protestants.

Have you ever been to St. Paul?

And even if people are still fighting among ethnicities when in fact almost everyone considers all of the above group as simply "white", do you really think the same stuff doesn't happen to English, German and Scottish Protestants in heavily Italian, Irish or Polish Catholic areas? And why do they get along worse than Scandinavian Protestants and German Catholics?

Kerry didn't poll high in high Catholic areas because ethnic Catholics didn't identify with him.  Plain and simple.

Or because hardly anyone cares about this when they vote anymore.

Why can't an anti-Catholic bigot exist?

Can an anti-Democrat or anti-Republican one exist?

And, no, I have never seen much Catholic on Protestant bigotry, cause we don't really care much.  Catholics recongnize the fact that we are all Christians.

Read the beliefnet forums sometime.

Most Protestants don't even consider Catholics to be Christians, rather, we are some wierd cult that worships the Pope and Mary.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard you say. Most? You're the one who earlier talked about Catholicism as a seperate religion, and I corrected you on it. I have never said said Catholics are not Christian. I actually called jmfcst on this, even though it was really just a cheap shot, and even he denied he ever said so. I have never met anyone in real life who has claimed this, and know of no one outside of a few loons who think Jack Chick is right. If you think that represents the vast majority of Protestants, you are clearly deluded indeed.

You just don't understand.  I can't give you a better answer than that.

You don't identify with your faith, that's why you see it as a political party.  Most people don't.  Esspecially when that faith is part of your ethnic identity.  And trust me, if an Italian Catholic ran for President, Italian Catholics would come out in droves to support them and Polish and Irish Catholics would probably support that candidate as well.

You think that Jack Chick is an isolated loon.  Let me tell you that he is not.  Again, something I know from personal expireince that I guess you just can't know.

People don't have to be as far out as him to be anti-Catholic or believe wierd things about Catholics either.  It is rare that I meet a Protestant who knows anything about the Catholic Church, other than the lies they have always been told.

You distorted what I said, anyway.  I never said seperate religion.  I just said that we aren't Protestants.  We are all Christians.  Fact is that Protestants don't see it that way.  Once again, something you would have to expirience to understand.

Just ask Phil.  He isn't lying.  Neither am I.

That is not to say that Protestants would not vote for a Catholic, although some wouldn't.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Ebowed on March 03, 2005, 01:00:33 am
In the meantime, bringing forward the governor of South Carolina will be a huge sign to the rest of the country that, inspite of having tons of great candidates from all over the country, we went with this guy, because he plays well with Evangelical Southerners.

What kind of message does that send?

It tells me that we are not a National Party.
So it's okay for a candidate to be from a swing state like Pennsylvania, but if there's a Southern candidate it makes for a non-National Party?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 01:02:39 am


So, simply saying "niether are the Democrats" is an good enough excuse for not doing it?

I'm saying that the GOP doesn't particularly need to carry states in the Northeast, which is true.

So "we don't have too" is a good enough excuse then?

You don't have to carry Vermont to win. Does that really bother you then that you have no chance of doing so?

You people lack vision.

No, we don't have to win Vermont, but it would be nice to stop dividing the country.  It woul dbe nice to acctually get more than 350 EVs.  It would be better if could accutally win 55% of the popular vote.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 01:03:49 am
In the meantime, bringing forward the governor of South Carolina will be a huge sign to the rest of the country that, inspite of having tons of great candidates from all over the country, we went with this guy, because he plays well with Evangelical Southerners.

What kind of message does that send?

It tells me that we are not a National Party.
So it's okay for a candidate to be from a swing state like Pennsylvania, but if there's a Southern candidate it makes for a non-National Party?

What I am saying is that we need to get out of the south in order to be seen as legit to the country.  We can't be the party of the south.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Ebowed on March 03, 2005, 01:04:28 am
In the meantime, bringing forward the governor of South Carolina will be a huge sign to the rest of the country that, inspite of having tons of great candidates from all over the country, we went with this guy, because he plays well with Evangelical Southerners.

What kind of message does that send?

It tells me that we are not a National Party.
So it's okay for a candidate to be from a swing state like Pennsylvania, but if there's a Southern candidate it makes for a non-National Party?

What I am saying is that we need to get out of the south in order to be seen as legit to the country.  We can't be the party of the south.
Yeah, screw that little POS region of the country


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 03, 2005, 01:05:10 am


So, simply saying "niether are the Democrats" is an good enough excuse for not doing it?

I'm saying that the GOP doesn't particularly need to carry states in the Northeast, which is true.

So "we don't have too" is a good enough excuse then?

You don't have to carry Vermont to win. Does that really bother you then that you have no chance of doing so?

You people lack vision.

No, we don't have to win Vermont, but it would be nice to stop dividing the country.  It woul dbe nice to acctually get more than 350 EVs.  It would be better if could accutally win 55% of the popular vote.

I agree, but it's not gonna happen.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 03, 2005, 01:09:47 am
You just don't understand.  I can't give you a better answer than that.

You don't identify with your faith, that's why you see it as a political party.  Most people don't.  Esspecially when that faith is part of your ethnic identity.  And trust me, if an Italian Catholic ran for President, Italian Catholics would come out in droves to support them and Polish and Irish Catholics would probably support that candidate as well.

You think that Jack Chick is an isolated loon.  Let me tell you that he is not.  Again, something I know from personal expireince that I guess you just can't know.

People don't have to be as far out as him to be anti-Catholic or believe wierd things about Catholics either.  It is rare that I meet a Protestant who knows anything about the Catholic Church, other than the lies they have always been told.

You distorted what I said, anyway.  I never said seperate religion.  I just said that we aren't Protestants.  We are all Christians.  Fact is that Protestants don't see it that way.  Once again, something you would have to expirience to understand.

Just ask Phil.  He isn't lying.  Neither am I.

That is not to say that Protestants would not vote for a Catholic, although some wouldn't.

Um yeah, Ferraro gave Mondale such a huge boost among Italian Catholics, right? Kerry was an Irish Catholic.

To people in this country, it's all white. I'd laugh at anyone who'd honestly think I would be more prone to support someone for any campaign just because they were a Scandinavian Lutheran, which is just as "ethnic" as everyone you listed.

I do believe Jack Chick is an isolated loon on account of the fact that I have never met anyone who likes him period, and this includes times in the past when I have trolled conservative message boards. Not to mention anyone who trulely believes the garbage he writes but be seriously mentally deficient since there's so many holes in it its not even funny, the classic Dungeons and Dragons tract is a prime example. You basically are claiming that the vast majority of Protestants agree with Jack Chick on Catholics, which is just hilarious.

You claim that I believe a lot of lies I've been told by my mom, but I have never said Catholics aren't Christian, and neither has she. And she voted for the same Catholic in November as I did. Sheesh, you're making Pennsylvania sound like some third world country full of ethnic strife, when it's just as diverse as Minnesota, which has nothing of the sort you're describing.

Why don't you ask Al about how popular Ian Paisley is and whether he gets overwhelming support from most British Protestants too by the way. I have to say I doubt there's much since I have never met a Brit who doesn't consider him a complete lunatic.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 01:11:55 am
In the meantime, bringing forward the governor of South Carolina will be a huge sign to the rest of the country that, inspite of having tons of great candidates from all over the country, we went with this guy, because he plays well with Evangelical Southerners.

What kind of message does that send?

It tells me that we are not a National Party.
So it's okay for a candidate to be from a swing state like Pennsylvania, but if there's a Southern candidate it makes for a non-National Party?

What I am saying is that we need to get out of the south in order to be seen as legit to the country.  We can't be the party of the south.
Yeah, screw that little POS region of the country

No, I'm not saying that.  In fact, I don't know what you are worried about.

George W. Bush: White Protestant male from Texas

Bill Clinton: White Protestant male from Texas

Al Gore:  White Protestant male from Tennesse

Bob Dole: White Protestant male from Kansas

George H. W. Bush: White Protestant male from Texas

Jimmy Carter: White Protestant male from Gerogia

Maybe it is time to let some other people in?



Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 03, 2005, 01:13:13 am
Jfern,

We're all partisan her, but you're a total hack.

It should be obvious to anyone non-partisan who pays attention that Condi Rice is a major league liar.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Sam Spade on March 03, 2005, 01:14:01 am
In how many elections since 1860 has a candidate won more than 55% of the vote:

1864 - Lincoln gets 55.02%  (half of country doesn't vote)
1872 - Grant gets 55.63% (helped by disenfranchising Confederates)
1904 - Roosevelt gets 56.42%  (popular prez.)
1920 - Harding gets 60.32% (return to normalcy)
1928 - Hoover gets 58.21% (chicken in every pot)
1932 - Roosevelt gets 57.41% (Great Depression)
1936 - Roosevelt gets 60.80% (height of his popularity)
1952 - Eisenhower gets 55.18% (Korean War)
1956 - Eisenhower gets 57.37% (Ike popular, incompetent challenger)
1964 - Johnson gets 61.05% (Kennedy ass., Goldwater bad candidate)
1972 - Nixon gets 60.67% (McGovern bad candidate)
1984 - Reagan gets 58.77% (Reagan popular)

I count 12 out 37 times a candidate has gotten more than 55% of the vote.  National margins and parties are an anomaly, not to be expected very often.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Ebowed on March 03, 2005, 01:17:31 am
In the meantime, bringing forward the governor of South Carolina will be a huge sign to the rest of the country that, inspite of having tons of great candidates from all over the country, we went with this guy, because he plays well with Evangelical Southerners.

What kind of message does that send?

It tells me that we are not a National Party.
So it's okay for a candidate to be from a swing state like Pennsylvania, but if there's a Southern candidate it makes for a non-National Party?

What I am saying is that we need to get out of the south in order to be seen as legit to the country.  We can't be the party of the south.
Yeah, screw that little POS region of the country

No, I'm not saying that.  In fact, I don't know what you are worried about.

George W. Bush: White Protestant male from Texas

Bill Clinton: White Protestant male from Texas

Al Gore:  White Protestant male from Tennesse

Bob Dole: White Protestant male from Kansas

George H. W. Bush: White Protestant male from Texas

Jimmy Carter: White Protestant male from Gerogia

Maybe it is time to let some other people in?


Ahem.  Clinton was from Arkansas last time I checked.  I don't consider Kansas Southern; that's Midwestern if anything else.  Guess you aren't counting Ferraro, Mondale, McGovern, Quayle, Lieberman, Kerry, Humphrey, etc.....


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: The Duke on March 03, 2005, 01:18:07 am
Um yeah, Ferraro gave Mondale such a huge boost among Italian Catholics, right? Kerry was an Irish Catholic.

This is why Super is right and you are wrong.  Going to mass does not make you Catholic, living a life based on Church teaching does.  Driving your wife to the brink of suicide, divorcing her and marrying your colleague's rich widow, backing abortion on demand, and raising a daughter who wears a see trough dress to the Cannes film festival is not Catholic.  Kerry is a Catholic in name only.  Ferraro is also a Catholic in name only.  They are elite northeastern liberals who subscribe to a cocktail party ideology and use their religion for show.  Real Catholics sense this, and don't consider these people to be Catholic.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 03, 2005, 01:18:45 am
In how many elections since 1860 has a candidate won more than 55% of the vote:

1864 - Lincoln gets 55.02%  (half of country doesn't vote)
1872 - Grant gets 55.63% (helped by disenfranchising Confederates)
1904 - Roosevelt gets 56.42%  (popular prez.)
1920 - Harding gets 60.32% (return to normalcy)
1928 - Hoover gets 58.21% (chicken in every pot)
1932 - Roosevelt gets 57.41% (Great Depression)
1936 - Roosevelt gets 60.80% (height of his popularity)
1952 - Eisenhower gets 55.18% (Korean War)
1956 - Eisenhower gets 57.37% (Ike popular, incompetent challenger)
1964 - Johnson gets 61.05% (Kennedy ass., Goldwater bad candidate)
1972 - Nixon gets 60.67% (McGovern bad candidate)
1984 - Reagan gets 58.77% (Reagan popular)

I count 12 out 37 times a candidate has gotten more than 55% of the vote.  National margins and parties are an anomaly, not to be expected very often.

Still 2.46% is one of the narrowest margins ever, and in in fact the narrowest for a sucessful re-election.
Also, you can't call 1924 a close election.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Ebowed on March 03, 2005, 01:19:01 am
1964 - Johnson gets 61.05% (Kennedy ass., Goldwater bad candidate)
1972 - Nixon gets 60.67% (McGovern bad candidate)
I don't think McGovern or Goldwater were bad candidates.  McGovern was the victim of a mean conservative media; Goldwater may have been extreme for his day but hey, he was honest.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 03, 2005, 01:19:13 am
Jfern,

We're all partisan her, but you're a total hack.

It should be obvious to anyone non-partisan who pays attention that Condi Rice is a major league liar.

It should be also be obvious to anyone non-partisan that she would never be mentioned if she wasn't a black woman anyway. Her and Gonzales are the reasons conservatives should never whine about affirmative action, not to mention earlier I frequently heard Republicans basically say "Democrats should not oppose Rice because she is black and thus should be allowed to have any job she wants. Democrats should not oppose Gonzales because he is Hispanic and thus should be able to have any job he wants."

Just hypocrisy.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 01:21:01 am


Um yeah, Ferraro gave Mondale such a huge boost among Italian Catholics, right? Kerry was an Irish Catholic.

Ferraro was an unknown VP candidate running against a well established incumbent.  You couldn't have thought of a worse example.

Oh, yeah, and John Kerry seemed really ethnic and Catholic to me.

Quote
To people in this country, it's all white. I'd laugh at anyone who'd honestly think I would be more prone to support someone for any campaign just because they were a Scandinavian Lutheran, which is just as "ethnic" as everyone you listed.

No it isn't.  Obviously you have never been to the Polaski or the Litz Club.

Quote
I do believe Jack Chick is an isolated loon on account of the fact that I have never met anyone who likes him period, and this includes times in the past when I have trolled conservative message boards. Not to mention anyone who trulely believes the garbage he writes but be seriously mentally deficient since there's so many holes in it its not even funny, the classic Dungeons and Dragons tract is a prime example. You basically are claiming that the vast majority of Protestants agree with Jack Chick on Catholics, which is just hilarious.

They might not agree with Chick, which I never said, but they still believe a lot of stuff that is laughable (or sad, depending) non-the-less


Quote
You claim that I believe a lot of lies I've been told by my mom, but I have never said Catholics aren't Christian, and neither has she. And she voted for the same Catholic in November as I did. Sheesh, you're making Pennsylvania sound like some third world country full of ethnic strife, when it's just as diverse as Minnesota, which has nothing of the sort you're describing.

Thankfully, I don't need you to believe me to know that I am right.  I never seem to recall accusing you, or even all Protestants of anything either.  But if you deny that there isn't a strong vain of anti-Catholic bias in this country... well it is always easy to not notice these things when they aren't happening to you.


Quote
Why don't you ask Al about how popular Ian Paisley is and whether he gets overwhelming support from most British Protestants too by the way. I have to say I doubt there's much since I have never met a Brit who doesn't consider him a complete lunatic.

I don't remember talking about Britian.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Ebowed on March 03, 2005, 01:21:31 am
Yes yes BRTD, when you consider that Republicans make a big deal out of Democrats for opposing black/Hispanic nominees, you wonder why Republicans oppose affirmative action


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 03, 2005, 01:22:09 am
Um yeah, Ferraro gave Mondale such a huge boost among Italian Catholics, right? Kerry was an Irish Catholic.

This is why Super is right and you are wrong.  Going to mass does not make you Catholic, living a life based on Church teaching does.  Driving your wife to the brink of suicide, divorcing her and marrying your colleague's rich widow, backing abortion on demand, and raising a daughter who wears a see trough dress to the Cannes film festival is not Catholic.  Kerry is a Catholic in name only.  Ferraro is also a Catholic in name only.  They are elite northeastern liberals who subscribe to a cocktail party ideology and use their religion for show.  Real Catholics sense this, and don't consider these people to be Catholic.

so what the hell does this have to do with ethnicity then? There's plenty of Irish and Italian Catholic folks who have opebo-esque lifestyles (hell, look at Flyers), and I bet there are plenty of German Catholics here who despite supposedly being closer to other whites than the people listed above who are Opus Dei nutcases.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 01:24:52 am
In the meantime, bringing forward the governor of South Carolina will be a huge sign to the rest of the country that, inspite of having tons of great candidates from all over the country, we went with this guy, because he plays well with Evangelical Southerners.

What kind of message does that send?

It tells me that we are not a National Party.
So it's okay for a candidate to be from a swing state like Pennsylvania, but if there's a Southern candidate it makes for a non-National Party?

What I am saying is that we need to get out of the south in order to be seen as legit to the country.  We can't be the party of the south.
Yeah, screw that little POS region of the country

No, I'm not saying that.  In fact, I don't know what you are worried about.

George W. Bush: White Protestant male from Texas

Bill Clinton: White Protestant male from Texas

Al Gore:  White Protestant male from Tennesse

Bob Dole: White Protestant male from Kansas

George H. W. Bush: White Protestant male from Texas

Jimmy Carter: White Protestant male from Gerogia

Maybe it is time to let some other people in?


Ahem.  Clinton was from Arkansas last time I checked.  I don't consider Kansas Southern; that's Midwestern if anything else.  Guess you aren't counting Ferraro, Mondale, McGovern, Quayle, Lieberman, Kerry, Humphrey, etc.....

The Clinton thing was a mistake, obviously.  I also said that I didn't want anyone from the plains states either.  That's why I lumped Dole in.  Which would also take care of McGovern.

Listen, I don't hate the south.  I think that if you had been on here long enough you would know that I have defended the south in some of the greatest battles that this forum has ever seen.  I just don't want a white-bread candidate from a traditional GOP state.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 01:29:33 am
Um yeah, Ferraro gave Mondale such a huge boost among Italian Catholics, right? Kerry was an Irish Catholic.

This is why Super is right and you are wrong.  Going to mass does not make you Catholic, living a life based on Church teaching does.  Driving your wife to the brink of suicide, divorcing her and marrying your colleague's rich widow, backing abortion on demand, and raising a daughter who wears a see trough dress to the Cannes film festival is not Catholic.  Kerry is a Catholic in name only.  Ferraro is also a Catholic in name only.  They are elite northeastern liberals who subscribe to a cocktail party ideology and use their religion for show.  Real Catholics sense this, and don't consider these people to be Catholic.

Thank you, John.  Exactly.

Example of a Catholic Democrat who might get a lot of support from the ethnic community:

Tom Vilsack


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 01:31:04 am
In how many elections since 1860 has a candidate won more than 55% of the vote:

1864 - Lincoln gets 55.02%  (half of country doesn't vote)
1872 - Grant gets 55.63% (helped by disenfranchising Confederates)
1904 - Roosevelt gets 56.42%  (popular prez.)
1920 - Harding gets 60.32% (return to normalcy)
1928 - Hoover gets 58.21% (chicken in every pot)
1932 - Roosevelt gets 57.41% (Great Depression)
1936 - Roosevelt gets 60.80% (height of his popularity)
1952 - Eisenhower gets 55.18% (Korean War)
1956 - Eisenhower gets 57.37% (Ike popular, incompetent challenger)
1964 - Johnson gets 61.05% (Kennedy ass., Goldwater bad candidate)
1972 - Nixon gets 60.67% (McGovern bad candidate)
1984 - Reagan gets 58.77% (Reagan popular)

I count 12 out 37 times a candidate has gotten more than 55% of the vote.  National margins and parties are an anomaly, not to be expected very often.

Still 2.46% is one of the narrowest margins ever, and in in fact the narrowest for a sucessful re-election.
Also, you can't call 1924 a close election.

See, jfern understands what I am saying.  Why are you guys so opposed to the idea of winning by wide margins and building a broad cooalition when it is just within our grasp.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 03, 2005, 01:36:14 am
Um yeah, Ferraro gave Mondale such a huge boost among Italian Catholics, right? Kerry was an Irish Catholic.

Ferraro was an unknown VP candidate running against a well established incumbent.  You couldn't have thought of a worse example.

Oh, yeah, and John Kerry seemed really ethnic and Catholic to me.

You basically said people would flock to someone on the basis of their ethnicity and religion alone. That obviously didn't happen. So Kerry didn't play the race or religion card. Doesn't change the facts

Quote


To people in this country, it's all white. I'd laugh at anyone who'd honestly think I would be more prone to support someone for any campaign just because they were a Scandinavian Lutheran, which is just as "ethnic" as everyone you listed.

No it isn't.  Obviously you have never been to the Polaski or the Litz Club.

You think there aren't places in Minnesota that are super-ethnic Scandinavian? And guess what, outside of those places the people from there are just white. And in places that have lots of transplants here like where I live or the Twin Cities, no one cares what brand of white you are.

They might not agree with Chick, which I never said, but they still believe a lot of stuff that is laughable (or sad, depending) non-the-less

as do you as you said earlier in the thread that most Protestants believe Catholicism is not Christian and a cult. And the issue is if they believe Catholics are not Christian. Almost no one outside of a few fundamentalist lunatics believes this. I dare you to find any mainline Protestants who believe this.


Thankfully, I don't need you to believe me to know that I am right.  I never seem to recall accusing you, or even all Protestants of anything either.

Most Protestants don't even consider Catholics to be Christians, rather, we are some wierd cult that worships the Pope and Mary.

um, yeah

Most Protestants don't even consider Catholics to be Christians, rather, we are some wierd cult that worships the Pope and Mary.
But if you deny that there isn't a strong vain of anti-Catholic bias in this country... well it is always easy to not notice these things when they aren't happening to you.
Quote

in what way? When have there been any major anti-Catholic hate crimes since some Klan activities in the 70s? Conservatives first claim that problems of massive discrimination against blacks and women are no longer issues and gays don't have major problems with this either, and now claim there's massive amounts of anti-Catholic discrimination in the US? LOL!


I don't remember talking about Britian.

Well it's basically the same situation and in fact should actually be worse since they still have the Northern Ireland thing and all of the strife in the past from all the various kings switching churches and all. And yet, even there, Paisley/Chick type loons have very little support. So why would most Protestants here which has never had anything similar believe things similar to such nutcases?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 03, 2005, 01:37:25 am
Um yeah, Ferraro gave Mondale such a huge boost among Italian Catholics, right? Kerry was an Irish Catholic.

This is why Super is right and you are wrong.  Going to mass does not make you Catholic, living a life based on Church teaching does.  Driving your wife to the brink of suicide, divorcing her and marrying your colleague's rich widow, backing abortion on demand, and raising a daughter who wears a see trough dress to the Cannes film festival is not Catholic.  Kerry is a Catholic in name only.  Ferraro is also a Catholic in name only.  They are elite northeastern liberals who subscribe to a cocktail party ideology and use their religion for show.  Real Catholics sense this, and don't consider these people to be Catholic.

Thank you, John.  Exactly.

Example of a Catholic Democrat who might get a lot of support from the ethnic community:

Tom Vilsack

How's he any different from Kerry? He's pro-choice and opposed anti-gay legislation.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: The Duke on March 03, 2005, 01:38:12 am
Um yeah, Ferraro gave Mondale such a huge boost among Italian Catholics, right? Kerry was an Irish Catholic.

This is why Super is right and you are wrong.  Going to mass does not make you Catholic, living a life based on Church teaching does.  Driving your wife to the brink of suicide, divorcing her and marrying your colleague's rich widow, backing abortion on demand, and raising a daughter who wears a see trough dress to the Cannes film festival is not Catholic.  Kerry is a Catholic in name only.  Ferraro is also a Catholic in name only.  They are elite northeastern liberals who subscribe to a cocktail party ideology and use their religion for show.  Real Catholics sense this, and don't consider these people to be Catholic.

so what the hell does this have to do with ethnicity then? There's plenty of Irish and Italian Catholic folks who have opebo-esque lifestyles (hell, look at Flyers), and I bet there are plenty of German Catholics here who despite supposedly being closer to other whites than the people listed above who are Opus Dei nutcases.

Flyers only wishes he had that lifestyle.  He is also not a real Catholic, as he does not follow Catholicism.

Ethnicity doesn't have to be an objective standard in this context, only subjective.  It is more a description of what people identify with than what their actual heritage is.  The Catholic vote in this case is a reference to people who actually practice Catholicism, not just those who descend from Catholic families.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 03, 2005, 01:40:40 am
Um yeah, Ferraro gave Mondale such a huge boost among Italian Catholics, right? Kerry was an Irish Catholic.

This is why Super is right and you are wrong.  Going to mass does not make you Catholic, living a life based on Church teaching does.  Driving your wife to the brink of suicide, divorcing her and marrying your colleague's rich widow, backing abortion on demand, and raising a daughter who wears a see trough dress to the Cannes film festival is not Catholic.  Kerry is a Catholic in name only.  Ferraro is also a Catholic in name only.  They are elite northeastern liberals who subscribe to a cocktail party ideology and use their religion for show.  Real Catholics sense this, and don't consider these people to be Catholic.

so what the hell does this have to do with ethnicity then? There's plenty of Irish and Italian Catholic folks who have opebo-esque lifestyles (hell, look at Flyers), and I bet there are plenty of German Catholics here who despite supposedly being closer to other whites than the people listed above who are Opus Dei nutcases.

Flyers only wishes he had that lifestyle.  He is also not a real Catholic, as he does not follow Catholicism.

Ethnicity doesn't have to be an objective standard in this context, only subjective.  It is more a description of what people identify with than what their actual heritage is.  The Catholic vote in this case is a reference to people who actually practice Catholicism, not just those who descend from Catholic families.

Like every Republican Catholic follows the verse "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God".


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 01:43:08 am
Um yeah, Ferraro gave Mondale such a huge boost among Italian Catholics, right? Kerry was an Irish Catholic.

This is why Super is right and you are wrong.  Going to mass does not make you Catholic, living a life based on Church teaching does.  Driving your wife to the brink of suicide, divorcing her and marrying your colleague's rich widow, backing abortion on demand, and raising a daughter who wears a see trough dress to the Cannes film festival is not Catholic.  Kerry is a Catholic in name only.  Ferraro is also a Catholic in name only.  They are elite northeastern liberals who subscribe to a cocktail party ideology and use their religion for show.  Real Catholics sense this, and don't consider these people to be Catholic.

so what the hell does this have to do with ethnicity then? There's plenty of Irish and Italian Catholic folks who have opebo-esque lifestyles (hell, look at Flyers), and I bet there are plenty of German Catholics here who despite supposedly being closer to other whites than the people listed above who are Opus Dei nutcases.

Flyers only wishes he had that lifestyle.  He is also not a real Catholic, as he does not follow Catholicism.

Ethnicity doesn't have to be an objective standard in this context, only subjective.  It is more a description of what people identify with than what their actual heritage is.  The Catholic vote in this case is a reference to people who actually practice Catholicism, not just those who descend from Catholic families.

Like every Republican Catholic follows the verse "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God".

How many times do I have to tell you?  You can not compare the socio-economic structer today to that of 2000 years ago.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Ebowed on March 03, 2005, 01:44:33 am
In the meantime, bringing forward the governor of South Carolina will be a huge sign to the rest of the country that, inspite of having tons of great candidates from all over the country, we went with this guy, because he plays well with Evangelical Southerners.

What kind of message does that send?

It tells me that we are not a National Party.
So it's okay for a candidate to be from a swing state like Pennsylvania, but if there's a Southern candidate it makes for a non-National Party?

What I am saying is that we need to get out of the south in order to be seen as legit to the country.  We can't be the party of the south.
Yeah, screw that little POS region of the country

No, I'm not saying that.  In fact, I don't know what you are worried about.

George W. Bush: White Protestant male from Texas

Bill Clinton: White Protestant male from Texas

Al Gore:  White Protestant male from Tennesse

Bob Dole: White Protestant male from Kansas

George H. W. Bush: White Protestant male from Texas

Jimmy Carter: White Protestant male from Gerogia

Maybe it is time to let some other people in?


Ahem.  Clinton was from Arkansas last time I checked.  I don't consider Kansas Southern; that's Midwestern if anything else.  Guess you aren't counting Ferraro, Mondale, McGovern, Quayle, Lieberman, Kerry, Humphrey, etc.....

The Clinton thing was a mistake, obviously.  I also said that I didn't want anyone from the plains states either.  That's why I lumped Dole in.  Which would also take care of McGovern.

Listen, I don't hate the south.  I think that if you had been on here long enough you would know that I have defended the south in some of the greatest battles that this forum has ever seen.  I just don't want a white-bread candidate from a traditional GOP state.
I don't think you hate the South.  I just don't see why a viable candidate still can't be Southern after so many Southern candidates.  To me it shouldn't really matter what part of the country the guy comes from, though sadly because of the electoral college it does matter.  I won't complain if both parties nominate Southerners, either.  Imagine John Breaux vs Mark Sanford.  I'd have a hard time choosing.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 03, 2005, 01:44:53 am

How many times do I have to tell you?  You can not compare the socio-economic structer today to that of 2000 years ago.

Are you saying that all of Christ's teachings are obsolete?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Ebowed on March 03, 2005, 01:45:32 am

How many times do I have to tell you?  You can not compare the socio-economic structer today to that of 2000 years ago.

Are you saying that all of Christ's teachings are obsolete?
Same question


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: The Duke on March 03, 2005, 01:53:21 am
Um yeah, Ferraro gave Mondale such a huge boost among Italian Catholics, right? Kerry was an Irish Catholic.

This is why Super is right and you are wrong.  Going to mass does not make you Catholic, living a life based on Church teaching does.  Driving your wife to the brink of suicide, divorcing her and marrying your colleague's rich widow, backing abortion on demand, and raising a daughter who wears a see trough dress to the Cannes film festival is not Catholic.  Kerry is a Catholic in name only.  Ferraro is also a Catholic in name only.  They are elite northeastern liberals who subscribe to a cocktail party ideology and use their religion for show.  Real Catholics sense this, and don't consider these people to be Catholic.

so what the hell does this have to do with ethnicity then? There's plenty of Irish and Italian Catholic folks who have opebo-esque lifestyles (hell, look at Flyers), and I bet there are plenty of German Catholics here who despite supposedly being closer to other whites than the people listed above who are Opus Dei nutcases.

Flyers only wishes he had that lifestyle.  He is also not a real Catholic, as he does not follow Catholicism.

Ethnicity doesn't have to be an objective standard in this context, only subjective.  It is more a description of what people identify with than what their actual heritage is.  The Catholic vote in this case is a reference to people who actually practice Catholicism, not just those who descend from Catholic families.

Like every Republican Catholic follows the verse "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God".

Is that an instruction I'm supposed to follow?

Its great not to be Christian, because I don't have to pay attention to stupid sh**t like this.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Smash255 on March 03, 2005, 02:01:18 am
Um yeah, Ferraro gave Mondale such a huge boost among Italian Catholics, right? Kerry was an Irish Catholic.

This is why Super is right and you are wrong.  Going to mass does not make you Catholic, living a life based on Church teaching does.  Driving your wife to the brink of suicide, divorcing her and marrying your colleague's rich widow, backing abortion on demand, and raising a daughter who wears a see trough dress to the Cannes film festival is not Catholic.  Kerry is a Catholic in name only.  Ferraro is also a Catholic in name only.  They are elite northeastern liberals who subscribe to a cocktail party ideology and use their religion for show.  Real Catholics sense this, and don't consider these people to be Catholic.

so what the hell does this have to do with ethnicity then? There's plenty of Irish and Italian Catholic folks who have opebo-esque lifestyles (hell, look at Flyers), and I bet there are plenty of German Catholics here who despite supposedly being closer to other whites than the people listed above who are Opus Dei nutcases.

Flyers only wishes he had that lifestyle.  He is also not a real Catholic, as he does not follow Catholicism.

Ethnicity doesn't have to be an objective standard in this context, only subjective.  It is more a description of what people identify with than what their actual heritage is.  The Catholic vote in this case is a reference to people who actually practice Catholicism, not just those who descend from Catholic families.

Like every Republican Catholic follows the verse "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God".

Rudy Giuliani is Catholic and he is about as socially liberal as you & I are


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 02:06:57 am
Um yeah, Ferraro gave Mondale such a huge boost among Italian Catholics, right? Kerry was an Irish Catholic.

Ferraro was an unknown VP candidate running against a well established incumbent.  You couldn't have thought of a worse example.

Oh, yeah, and John Kerry seemed really ethnic and Catholic to me.

You basically said people would flock to someone on the basis of their ethnicity and religion alone. That obviously didn't happen. So Kerry didn't play the race or religion card. Doesn't change the facts

Quote


To people in this country, it's all white. I'd laugh at anyone who'd honestly think I would be more prone to support someone for any campaign just because they were a Scandinavian Lutheran, which is just as "ethnic" as everyone you listed.

No it isn't.  Obviously you have never been to the Polaski or the Litz Club.

You think there aren't places in Minnesota that are super-ethnic Scandinavian? And guess what, outside of those places the people from there are just white. And in places that have lots of transplants here like where I live or the Twin Cities, no one cares what brand of white you are.

They might not agree with Chick, which I never said, but they still believe a lot of stuff that is laughable (or sad, depending) non-the-less

as do you as you said earlier in the thread that most Protestants believe Catholicism is not Christian and a cult. And the issue is if they believe Catholics are not Christian. Almost no one outside of a few fundamentalist lunatics believes this. I dare you to find any mainline Protestants who believe this.


Thankfully, I don't need you to believe me to know that I am right.  I never seem to recall accusing you, or even all Protestants of anything either.

Most Protestants don't even consider Catholics to be Christians, rather, we are some wierd cult that worships the Pope and Mary.

um, yeah

Most Protestants don't even consider Catholics to be Christians, rather, we are some wierd cult that worships the Pope and Mary.
But if you deny that there isn't a strong vain of anti-Catholic bias in this country... well it is always easy to not notice these things when they aren't happening to you.
Quote

in what way? When have there been any major anti-Catholic hate crimes since some Klan activities in the 70s? Conservatives first claim that problems of massive discrimination against blacks and women are no longer issues and gays don't have major problems with this either, and now claim there's massive amounts of anti-Catholic discrimination in the US? LOL!


I don't remember talking about Britian.

Well it's basically the same situation and in fact should actually be worse since they still have the Northern Ireland thing and all of the strife in the past from all the various kings switching churches and all. And yet, even there, Paisley/Chick type loons have very little support. So why would most Protestants here which has never had anything similar believe things similar to such nutcases?

I have already talked this to death.  You obviously won't listen, so I won't go on with this.  I'll just close with a few things:

1) Being of any German, English, French, Dutch or Scandanvain decent in this country cannot be compared with being of Irish, Polish, Italian or other Eastern European decent, because the former groups have always been accepted by the people of this country as those groups existed from the founding of the country.  The former, however, were often rediculed and and bigoted against because they were "foriegn", but also because they were Catholic (most of the French in early America were Hugnouts).  It wasn't until the 60's that we even started getting out of the ghettos in most places.

If you don't believe in the power of ethnic politics, study how Mike Dukakis won the nomination.  He won it largely thanks to very high turnout in Greek areas.  This isn't a guarentee of success.  The candidate must share common values with the ethnic group.  These values might be political, but they often transend the political as well.  Kerry did not share these values with most ethnically Irish, or most Catholics.

I was raised in an Italian family.  I have a friend who is acctually a "blood" Italian.  I'm more Italian than he is, because his family basically moved out of the ghetto and beat all of the Italianess out of themselves.  All that is left now is a last name.  So there are no hard and fast rules.  Which kinda prove my point about Kerry.

2) You want to find anti-Catholism, search the internet.  It really isn't that hard.

That belittles my point, however, which has been, from the begining that anti-Catholic bias in the country, though not raging, like it was as little as 50 years ago, is still present in daily life.

3) The British have rejected the rampent anti-Catholisism that you see in Northern Ireland, yes.  It is always easier to look at seething hate and see what is worng with it.  When bigotry is more subtle is when it is much more easily accepted, as is the case here.

4) Not so subtle things have happened.  In a town only 30 miles away from here, the Protestant churches spent a full year pulling their resources to pass out anti-Catholic literature, including many Chick tracts.

5) They then hit the town right next to mine, but it didn't last nearly as long because the community there is much larger and they put a stop to it.

6) Regardless of what you say, the average Protestant knows about as much of the truth about Catholic Teaching as a fish knows about riding a bike.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 02:08:25 am
Um yeah, Ferraro gave Mondale such a huge boost among Italian Catholics, right? Kerry was an Irish Catholic.

This is why Super is right and you are wrong.  Going to mass does not make you Catholic, living a life based on Church teaching does.  Driving your wife to the brink of suicide, divorcing her and marrying your colleague's rich widow, backing abortion on demand, and raising a daughter who wears a see trough dress to the Cannes film festival is not Catholic.  Kerry is a Catholic in name only.  Ferraro is also a Catholic in name only.  They are elite northeastern liberals who subscribe to a cocktail party ideology and use their religion for show.  Real Catholics sense this, and don't consider these people to be Catholic.

so what the hell does this have to do with ethnicity then? There's plenty of Irish and Italian Catholic folks who have opebo-esque lifestyles (hell, look at Flyers), and I bet there are plenty of German Catholics here who despite supposedly being closer to other whites than the people listed above who are Opus Dei nutcases.

Flyers only wishes he had that lifestyle.  He is also not a real Catholic, as he does not follow Catholicism.

Ethnicity doesn't have to be an objective standard in this context, only subjective.  It is more a description of what people identify with than what their actual heritage is.  The Catholic vote in this case is a reference to people who actually practice Catholicism, not just those who descend from Catholic families.

Like every Republican Catholic follows the verse "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God".

Rudy Giuliani is Catholic and he is about as socially liberal as you & I are

He also grew up in Brooklyn in a working class Italian ghetto.

John Kerry grew up on Becon Hill with all the other families that have been in Boston since the early 1700's.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: patrick1 on March 03, 2005, 02:10:00 am

Um yeah, Ferraro gave Mondale such a huge boost among Italian Catholics, right? Kerry was an Irish Catholic.

Just want to make it clear that John Kerry is not nor was he ever Irish.  He lied saying he was Irish a few times to get votes in Mass.  Apparently his grandfather, Austrian Jewish I believe, spun a globe and landed on County Kerry Ireland and decided that was a good name.  The original family name escapes me at the moment.  I just wanted to make sure that that social climbing $hitbag was not thought of as Irish- the Kennedy's already have that market cornered.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 02:12:02 am

How many times do I have to tell you?  You can not compare the socio-economic structer today to that of 2000 years ago.

Are you saying that all of Christ's teachings are obsolete?

Know, I am saying that there is a context to everything.  If I make $70,000 a year today, I would be filthy rich compared to 99% of the population in Christ's time.

Also, 95% illiteracy meant that most people had no chance of becoming more than they were born into and thus the cycle of poverty truely was perminant.

Thus, the meager alms that many wealthy people gave at the time were not nearly enough.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Sam Spade on March 03, 2005, 02:18:55 am
I don't think you hate the South.  I just don't see why a viable candidate still can't be Southern after so many Southern candidates.  To me it shouldn't really matter what part of the country the guy comes from, though sadly because of the electoral college it does matter.  I won't complain if both parties nominate Southerners, either.  Imagine John Breaux vs Mark Sanford.  I'd have a hard time choosing.

I'd have a hard time choosing in that one too because I like both of them.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 02:30:45 am
I don't think you hate the South.  I just don't see why a viable candidate still can't be Southern after so many Southern candidates.  To me it shouldn't really matter what part of the country the guy comes from, though sadly because of the electoral college it does matter.  I won't complain if both parties nominate Southerners, either.  Imagine John Breaux vs Mark Sanford.  I'd have a hard time choosing.

I see an oppertunity in 2008 to create a truely dominant party by reaching out to the battle ground states that went to Kerry, and even to some solid Kerry states.  Why not take it?  If we run a southern or plains state candidate, it will just be more of the same.  Having three election pass where the map looks bascially unchanged is very bad for the country.

We have an opportunity for reallignment here.  If we continue on in this state of flux, then one mistake, just one, could mean that the Democrats push us in the closet, lock the door and rule the house for another 20 years.  Is that what we want?  No, of course not.  We have to move and take advantage of this time we have now by expanding the base.  I don't know what the best way to do that is, but I do know that changing the status quo does not mean doing more o fthe same.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: AuH2O on March 03, 2005, 11:03:19 am
Frist, the robotic and dull, cat-killing HMO operator, is not going to win the nomination.

I mean, I can't believe someone actually calls themselves a Republican after playing the victim card FOR BEING CATHOLIC! That is unbelievable. Truly remarkable victimology.

And, on top of that, he won't vote for his own party unless they nominate a yankee. Incredible. Especially since his state keeps voting for Democrats... I guess they deserve the reward. Makes sense to me, nominate someone from states that vote against your party.

I mean, what's next? Soulty won't vote Republican unless he personally gets the nomination? I mean, everyone else is a "good 'ol boy" even if their young, professional, and honest. hmm.

You know, we don't need trash like soulty in the party. Just don't need the drama. I'm not sure when people with no influence and no brain starting thinking they call the shots. I guess the Democrats are the party of the people, so soulty will have to support their white male if the GOP should nominate a white male.

What an asshole. Screw the Northeast- that's the only reason our government is full of socialists to begin with. And their thinking has apparently gotten to dumby soulty- who cries out for affirmative action to appease his childish whims.

Thank you for misinterpriting what I said.  I said "I won't support anyone in the primary who doesn't match that discription.  Not the general election.

And, once again, anti-Catholic bigotry does exist.  It is very real.  You know why you don't notice it?  Because you aren't Catholic.  If you were, you would notice.  I don't know if I can be polite about this anymore.

Now, dumby AuH2O apparently wants to nominate another Goldwater who will lose to the Democrats in a landslide and take the Senate with him.  Yeah, that's not going bring on more socialism or anything.

Clearly, you seem to have missed the fact that we live in a country.  This country is called America.  In America, we have 50 states.  There are states that are not South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi.  Some of these states voted for Bush.  Some of them didn't, but came very close, like New Hampshire, PA, Michigan, Oregon, Wisconsin and Minnesota.  Some of these states might go GOP in '08 if we pick the right candidate.  I'm pretty sure that that candidate is not Mark Sanford, Governor of Nothing and Protector of the Same.  I'm pretty sure that a good candidate from a very Liberal state like MA, like, say, Mitt Romney, might have enough appeal to turn a lot of states over to us.  I'm also pretty sure that "punishing" certain states for not voting for you is a stupid strategy that will only increase the partisan divide in this country.

Where to begin? OK how about this: I am Catholic, confirmed and all. Suck on that. Oh and I go to a college that was affiliated with the baptist convention until 13 years ago and is in the same city as Bob Jones. I've never once experienced, in 21 years, anything resembling an anti-Catholic incident, nor do I know anyone that has.

WHERE candidates are from doesn't matter. Sanford could easily take Michigan and PA and New Hampshire and the like... Pawlenty could take the South... geography isn't the be all and end all, and if you understood politics, you would know that.

But, you don't. You want to disqualify a terrific potential leader because of the state they live in. Sanford, for instance, was actually born in Florida, and he and his wife worked as investment bankers in NYC for a while before he moved back to SC to get into politics.

Romney, actually, doesn't have extensive ties to MA- so he won't win it in a national election, or the other far-left states in the People's Republic.

The main thing is for politically ignorant people to not think they know how to win Presidential elections. Or how to "create a dominant party," even though, if you had knowledge of political theory, you would also understand that isn't really possible in a 2-party system without extenuating circumstances that do not exist, and will not exist.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 03, 2005, 11:35:48 am
1) Being of any German, English, French, Dutch or Scandanvain decent in this country cannot be compared with being of Irish, Polish, Italian or other Eastern European decent, because the former groups have always been accepted by the people of this country as those groups existed from the founding of the country.  The former, however, were often rediculed and and bigoted against because they were "foriegn", but also because they were Catholic (most of the French in early America were Hugnouts).  It wasn't until the 60's that we even started getting out of the ghettos in most places.

If you don't believe in the power of ethnic politics, study how Mike Dukakis won the nomination.  He won it largely thanks to very high turnout in Greek areas.  This isn't a guarentee of success.  The candidate must share common values with the ethnic group.  These values might be political, but they often transend the political as well.  Kerry did not share these values with most ethnically Irish, or most Catholics.

I was raised in an Italian family.  I have a friend who is acctually a "blood" Italian.  I'm more Italian than he is, because his family basically moved out of the ghetto and beat all of the Italianess out of themselves.  All that is left now is a last name.  So there are no hard and fast rules.  Which kinda prove my point about Kerry.

2) You want to find anti-Catholism, search the internet.  It really isn't that hard.

That belittles my point, however, which has been, from the begining that anti-Catholic bias in the country, though not raging, like it was as little as 50 years ago, is still present in daily life.

3) The British have rejected the rampent anti-Catholisism that you see in Northern Ireland, yes.  It is always easier to look at seething hate and see what is worng with it.  When bigotry is more subtle is when it is much more easily accepted, as is the case here.

4) Not so subtle things have happened.  In a town only 30 miles away from here, the Protestant churches spent a full year pulling their resources to pass out anti-Catholic literature, including many Chick tracts.

5) They then hit the town right next to mine, but it didn't last nearly as long because the community there is much larger and they put a stop to it.

6) Regardless of what you say, the average Protestant knows about as much of the truth about Catholic Teaching as a fish knows about riding a bike.

1) Yes, there was some discrimination quite about a century ago. That does not happen today. I dare you to find any white supremecists who don't consider those groups white. Hell, Italy and much of Eastern Europe even sided with the Nazis.

2) You can also easily find on the internet claims that the Holocaust did not happen. Does that mean a significant number of the population believes this? Yes, I can easily find Chick or Paisley's loony sites, but finding people who believe them is a much more difficult task.

Not to mention you can find anti-Protestantism on the internet pretty easily as well. Take a look here: http://www.catholicism.org/eens.html

Yes, you'll no doubt say you don't agree with that site, and that the vast majority of Catholics don't either, which I'll believe. But it's ludicrous to say that and then that most Protestants agree with Jack Chick.

3) And what are the examples? I find it hilarious you've defended Bush's visit to Bob Jones University though if you think this is so rampant, and then think it's find to visit one of the few places that actually does preach this stuff.

4) Then are women who have had abortions a minority? Strippers? They've been harassed much more than these obviously born again fundagenical churches than Catholics.

P.S. Ever heard of the National Council of Churches? I gurantee you no one from that group was involved. And they are just as large if not larger than the evangelical churches. Then add in the evangelical churches that do not consider Catholics non-Christian or whatever, and you have a much larger group of Protestants than Chick and Paisley loons.

5) Therefore the Catholic church got more defense than abortion clinics usually do.

6) might be true, might not, I don't know. But to say the average Protestant thinks Catholics aren't Christian and just a bizarre cult is ing idiotic.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: WalterMitty on March 03, 2005, 12:04:29 pm
supersoulty is just showing his anti-southern bias.

why on earth would the republicans want to nominate someone like sanford or lamar alexander when we could have mr. inclusive rick santorum, or mr. excitement tom ridge?



Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 12:33:49 pm
To Walter Mitty, AuH2O and BRTD

I appreciate how all of you have taken one asspect of my initial argument and blown it way out of proportion.

Au,

Congrats on being Catholic.  Want a metal?

BRTD,

You are, of course, the original perpetrator of this whole thing.  Thank you for concentrating on one point of my argument in some attempt to discredit me.  This wasn't even a point.  It was a sub-point of a point.  You could have said that is was great of me for being a progressive thinker and thinking that a woman or minority could do the job, but intead, you attacked me for say that Catholics are a minority when pretty much any political science professor who has study voting patterns would agree with me.

That website you posted is bogus, by the way.  No Catholic would ever descirb themselves as being "slave" to anything, let alone Mary's Immaculate Heart.

Walter Mitty,

Don't get involved in an argument when you have no clue what is going on.  Clearly, you probably never even read what I originally said.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 03, 2005, 12:46:53 pm
Quick point: Kerry isn't an Irish Catholic (don't be fooled by the name) and certainly isn't an ethnic politician.
He comes off as more WASPish than a WASP like Bush, hence his poor preformance with Catholic voters and his impressive preformance with mainline Protestants.

Ethnic voters (and they're usually Catholic) are importent to both parties because on the one hand they are overwhelmingly Democratic by registration etc, but on the other hand they are usually somewhat socially conservative and don't have any problems with splitting their tickets (take a look at some of the statewide races in PA last year if you don't believe me).


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 12:55:48 pm
Quick point: Kerry isn't an Irish Catholic (don't be fooled by the name) and certainly isn't an ethnic politician.
He comes off as more WASPish than a WASP like Bush, hence his poor preformance with Catholic voters and his impressive preformance with mainline Protestants.

Ethnic voters (and they're usually Catholic) are importent to both parties because on the one hand they are overwhelmingly Democratic by registration etc, but on the other hand they are usually somewhat socially conservative and don't have any problems with splitting their tickets (take a look at some of the statewide races in PA last year if you don't believe me).

Thank you, Al.


Quick question:  From what you have seen, do you think there is any anti-Catholicism here in America?  Acctually, the charge was made that anti-Catholicism was not a big deal in Britian as well.  Do you agree with that?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 03, 2005, 01:16:18 pm
Quick question:  From what you have seen, do you think there is any anti-Catholicism here in America?

Yes, it's just not as overt as it was. Think about how many people who voted against Kennedy in '60 because he was a Catholic are still alive now. Remember that most of the people who voted against him on sectarian grounds will have had children.
Sad fact is that bigotry (against any group) never entirely goes away. It just gets less blatent.

Quote
Acctually, the charge was made that anti-Catholicism was not a big deal in Britian as well.  Do you agree with that?

Compared to the '60's when the Tories held working class seats in Liverpool and Glasgow due to the orange (ie: anti catholic) vote and a visit by the Pope to Liverpool had to be cancelled because Liverpool City Council effectivly threatend riots, then yes it's not a big deal.

But in a more general sense, yes. There was all that fuss over Kelly becoming Education Secretary, and the bizarre incedent when the media tried to pry into Blair's religious beliefs.
Sectarianism still causes problems in Glasgow (especially Rangers v Celtic) and the Scottish Executive has been trying to stamp that out, without much sucess sadly.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 01:23:06 pm
Quick question:  From what you have seen, do you think there is any anti-Catholicism here in America?

Yes, it's just not as overt as it was. Think about how many people who voted against Kennedy in '60 because he was a Catholic are still alive now. Remember that most of the people who voted against him on sectarian grounds will have had children.
Sad fact is that bigotry (against any group) never entirely goes away. It just gets less blatent.

Quote
Acctually, the charge was made that anti-Catholicism was not a big deal in Britian as well.  Do you agree with that?

Compared to the '60's when the Tories held working class seats in Liverpool and Glasgow due to the orange (ie: anti catholic) vote and a visit by the Pope to Liverpool had to be cancelled because Liverpool City Council effectivly threatend riots, then yes it's not a big deal.

But in a more general sense, yes. There was all that fuss over Kelly becoming Education Secretary, and the bizarre incedent when the media tried to pry into Blair's religious beliefs.
Sectarianism still causes problems in Glasgow (especially Rangers v Celtic) and the Scottish Executive has been trying to stamp that out, without much sucess sadly.

Thank you again, Al.

But you mentioned abotu when Kennedy ran for President.  You mean to tell me that there were acctually anti-Catholics who voted against him in large numbers and that people were handing out flyers about the "evils" of Catholicism.  But Al, that was only 40 years ago.  According to BRTD, that all stop more than 100 years ago (befoe most Polish and Italian families were even in the country).  So, who is wrong here?

Is it possible that you, a Brit, know more about America than these Americans?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 01:32:20 pm
Oh, and another thing, I went online to search for one of those signs that says "Catholics Need Not Apply" and instead found an essay on how all of that was a myth.  Bullsh**t!

My family has one of those signs.  My great-grand father used to hang it in his office when he was DA of Clearfield county (an possition he earned but only recieved tahnks in large part to his campaigning in Catholic ghettos).  He was an Irish Catholic, and he used it as a reminder of how far we had come since my family first came here in the 1840's.  So don't tell me they don't exist or that it never happened.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: AuH2O on March 03, 2005, 02:04:51 pm
Well, soulty, let me begin by noting it's "medal," not "metal," which of course describes certain types of elements (and, in the vernacular, alloys). Secondly, note that you claimed I "wasn't Catholic," which was actually a lie. Thirdly, Kennedy actually won a good portion of the South, Catholic and all, while losing many Northern states. Actually, Alfred Smith won the Deep South as a Catholic in 1928.

Fourthly, even if bias against Catholics still really existed, which it doesn't, you are racist against Southerners, and thus a worse offender. Fifthly, by pursuing a racist policy against the base of your party, you are essentially a traitor to that party and certainly not welcome in it.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: The Duke on March 03, 2005, 02:39:09 pm
I can't believe that Supersoulty is being pilloried by so many people when what he's saying has an obvious logic to it.  Soulty's argumentn is simply that the GOP must run a big tent candidate to win in a changing country, and one way to do that is to run a woman/Catholic/minority/northerner for ethnic, religious, gender, and regional appeal.  His reason is that the 2000 and 2004 victories were shadows of what a big tent GOP could accomplish.  I think he's right to some extent, and I don't think Sanford brings us that appeal.  He's a southern, male, white, Protestant with a basic Bushesque conservative philosophy that will never appeal to California or other such Democrat states.

His claim that Catholics are a minority should be accepted, because its not even debatable.  There are fewer Catholics than Protestants, and traditionally they have not been the group in power in America.

AuH20,

Don't talk about how Sanford can take Michigan and Pennsylvania, since you repeatedly predicted the Bush would take 350 EVs or so.  And don't talk about how well Smith did in 1928 in the south.  Compare his map to Davis's map in 1924, and you'll see that you have no clue what you're talking about.  There was a major drop off from 24 to 28.

WalterMitty,

Don't resort to crappy insults.  Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're bigoted against some group.  Maybe he just idsagrees and is not an anti-Southern bigot.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: ian on March 03, 2005, 03:15:53 pm
Well, soulty, let me begin by noting it's "medal," not "metal," which of course describes certain types of elements (and, in the vernacular, alloys). Secondly, note that you claimed I "wasn't Catholic," which was actually a lie. Thirdly, Kennedy actually won a good portion of the South, Catholic and all, while losing many Northern states. Actually, Alfred Smith won the Deep South as a Catholic in 1928.

Fourthly, even if bias against Catholics still really existed, which it doesn't, you are racist against Southerners, and thus a worse offender. Fifthly, by pursuing a racist policy against the base of your party, you are essentially a traitor to that party and certainly not welcome in it.

Bias against Catholics does exist and is prominent, at least where I live.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 03, 2005, 03:31:38 pm
Quick point: Kerry isn't an Irish Catholic (don't be fooled by the name) and certainly isn't an ethnic politician.
He comes off as more WASPish than a WASP like Bush, hence his poor preformance with Catholic voters and his impressive preformance with mainline Protestants.

Ethnic voters (and they're usually Catholic) are importent to both parties because on the one hand they are overwhelmingly Democratic by registration etc, but on the other hand they are usually somewhat socially conservative and don't have any problems with splitting their tickets (take a look at some of the statewide races in PA last year if you don't believe me).

Time to bash on the Jewish Catholics?
Yes, Kerry's grandfather changed his name from Kohn to Kerry.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 03, 2005, 03:44:02 pm
Quick point: Kerry isn't an Irish Catholic (don't be fooled by the name) and certainly isn't an ethnic politician.
He comes off as more WASPish than a WASP like Bush, hence his poor preformance with Catholic voters and his impressive preformance with mainline Protestants.

Ethnic voters (and they're usually Catholic) are importent to both parties because on the one hand they are overwhelmingly Democratic by registration etc, but on the other hand they are usually somewhat socially conservative and don't have any problems with splitting their tickets (take a look at some of the statewide races in PA last year if you don't believe me).

Time to bash on the Jewish Catholics?
Yes, Kerry's grandfather changed his name from Kohn to Kerry.

Okay... I don't think that Al was trying to "bash" on Jewish people.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: AuH2O on March 03, 2005, 03:57:56 pm
Well, I guess Smith only got 92% in South Carolina. Guess there was good Catholic turnout there. ha.

This "big tent" stuff is hilarious. Guess what, your goal is to get MORE THAN THE OTHER SIDE. Too big of a tent collapses.

The country is only "changing" insofar as we let millions of Mexicans enter it every year. But they aren't as culturally inclined towards victimology, so Democrats hold more limited appeal to them and win a majority of their votes mainly because of economic reasons (i.e. the majority are in lower income brackets).

The idea we "need" California is quite simply laughable, as is the idea we "need" a black woman in charge for the party to survive. As far as my Bush predictions, they were good enough to make 2 grand, which I assume is more than you made off the election-- as the election drew nearer, by the way, my predictions were very accurate, it was merely early ones that did not take a disastrous first debate performance into account.

I mean, some people here maybe don't understand democracy. Unlike North Korea, we don't have to pretend there is 100% consensus. There isn't. And guess what? Conservatives want to actually implement CONSERVATIVE policies. Imagine that fordy. And here you thought the GOP was purely in a game with Democrats to win elections, where ideology doesn't matter at all.

I'm glad these people aren't coaches. 'Hey team, yeah technically our goal is to win, but if we don't win by 10 that isn't good enough, because the game is changing, uh, somehow.' 'Oh, and we can't win by using the same gameplan. Like, we need to use the other's sides plan, because otherwise, we aren't being fair.'

These people should go over to the "emerging Democratic majority" site, where idiots keep saying Democrats have to win because we imported so many Mexicans and because women hate Republicans because of abortion. Oddly, Democrats have been in retreat at all levels since 1994, but I guess that majority will emerge eventually. Just keep people poor and import another 30 million Mexicans. So Republicans should really not run anyone except female minorities-- from the West coast or Northeast-- because otherwise they might keep winning elections by relying on... UGH.. the majority vote. I hate majorities actually, they're terrible politically...


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 03, 2005, 04:00:19 pm
Time to bash on the Jewish Catholics?

Who says I'm bashing anyone?

Quote
Yes, Kerry's grandfather changed his name from Kohn to Kerry.

And? I were pointing out that despite the name, Kerry is not an Irish Catholic.
And the fact that he comes across as a WASP (even though he isn't) is pretty indisputable IMO.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 03, 2005, 04:02:16 pm
Time to bash on the Jewish Catholics?

Who says I'm bashing anyone?

Quote
Yes, Kerry's grandfather changed his name from Kohn to Kerry.

And? I were pointing out that despite the name, Kerry is not an Irish Catholic.
And the fact that he comes across as a WASP (even though he isn't) is pretty indisputable IMO.

You're all complaining about how the 3rd I believe  (and the first in 44 years) non WASP major party candidate in US history comes across as a WASP? That's pretty laughable.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 03, 2005, 04:05:23 pm
Well, I guess Smith only got 92% in South Carolina. Guess there was good Catholic turnout there. ha.

Oh dear. Someone knows less than he likes to let on. Go find out how many people actually voted in SC prior to the '40's...


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 03, 2005, 04:09:33 pm
You're all complaining about how the 3rd I believe  (and the first in 44 years) non WASP major party candidate in US history comes across as a WASP? That's pretty laughable.

Dukakis is an English name? Good Lord I learn something new every day.

Seriously though, the term WASP implies a certain amount of East Coast establishment-ness. I don't class LBJ or Bubba as WASP's, and neither did the electorate.

Like it or not Kerry came across as the most WASPish candidate since Bush sr.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 03, 2005, 04:10:08 pm
Well, I guess Smith only got 92% in South Carolina. Guess there was good Catholic turnout there. ha.

Oh dear. Someone knows less than he likes to let on. Go find out how many people actually voted in SC prior to the '40's...

Well, Smith did run very well in the Black Belts of the South, because voters were too racially polarized to care about religion. But in the predominantly white counties, his vote collapsed far below Davis and Cox, because of anti-Catholicism. Overall, he lost substantial ground- he even lost counties in Mississippi, for God's sake!


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: AuH2O on March 03, 2005, 04:13:13 pm
Well, I guess Smith only got 92% in South Carolina. Guess there was good Catholic turnout there. ha.

Oh dear. Someone knows less than he likes to let on. Go find out how many people actually voted in SC prior to the '40's...

There were 62,700 catholics or blacks voting in SC in 1928?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 03, 2005, 04:41:03 pm
You're all complaining about how the 3rd I believe  (and the first in 44 years) non WASP major party candidate in US history comes across as a WASP? That's pretty laughable.

Dukakis is an English name? Good Lord I learn something new every day.

Seriously though, the term WASP implies a certain amount of East Coast establishment-ness. I don't class LBJ or Bubba as WASP's, and neither did the electorate.

Like it or not Kerry came across as the most WASPish candidate since Bush sr.

So basically you're biased against the north-east? I think the north-east has had enough bashing from Republicans for political reasons.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 03, 2005, 04:46:09 pm
So basically you're biased against the north-east? I think the north-east has had enough bashing from Republicans for political reasons.

No, I'm not.
Run a working class ethnic Catholic from Massachusetts or Rhode Island and I think they'd do pretty well (remember that Tip's approval rating was higher than Reagan's when he retired in '86), run someone who comes across as a WASP though...


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 03, 2005, 05:37:21 pm
So basically you're biased against the north-east? I think the north-east has had enough bashing from Republicans for political reasons.

No, I'm not.
Run a working class ethnic Catholic from Massachusetts or Rhode Island and I think they'd do pretty well (remember that Tip's approval rating was higher than Reagan's when he retired in '86), run someone who comes across as a WASP though...


Working class people tend not to run for President.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 03, 2005, 05:40:50 pm
So basically you're biased against the north-east? I think the north-east has had enough bashing from Republicans for political reasons.

No, I'm not.
Run a working class ethnic Catholic from Massachusetts or Rhode Island and I think they'd do pretty well (remember that Tip's approval rating was higher than Reagan's when he retired in '86), run someone who comes across as a WASP though...


What about FDR? Do you like him? Did he seem like too WASPish to be a good President? Don't let minor points like that he ended the Great Depression and won World War II distract you from your real opinion of him.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Ebowed on March 03, 2005, 06:13:39 pm
Well, I guess Smith only got 92% in South Carolina. Guess there was good Catholic turnout there. ha.

Oh dear. Someone knows less than he likes to let on. Go find out how many people actually voted in SC prior to the '40's...

There were 62,700 catholics or blacks voting in SC in 1928?
don't be stupid.  As it's been said race was too polarizing an issue for MOST whites to care that Smith was a Catholic... and regardless of Smith's opinions on race, SC was a SOLID democrat state and it voted that way... Smith might have lost a few white votes but in SC it didn't matter nearly as much as it mattered in less-Southern states like Texas and Tennessee.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: The Duke on March 03, 2005, 07:21:58 pm
Well, I guess Smith only got 92% in South Carolina. Guess there was good Catholic turnout there. ha.

This "big tent" stuff is hilarious. Guess what, your goal is to get MORE THAN THE OTHER SIDE. Too big of a tent collapses.

The country is only "changing" insofar as we let millions of Mexicans enter it every year. But they aren't as culturally inclined towards victimology, so Democrats hold more limited appeal to them and win a majority of their votes mainly because of economic reasons (i.e. the majority are in lower income brackets).

The idea we "need" California is quite simply laughable, as is the idea we "need" a black woman in charge for the party to survive. As far as my Bush predictions, they were good enough to make 2 grand, which I assume is more than you made off the election-- as the election drew nearer, by the way, my predictions were very accurate, it was merely early ones that did not take a disastrous first debate performance into account.

I mean, some people here maybe don't understand democracy. Unlike North Korea, we don't have to pretend there is 100% consensus. There isn't. And guess what? Conservatives want to actually implement CONSERVATIVE policies. Imagine that fordy. And here you thought the GOP was purely in a game with Democrats to win elections, where ideology doesn't matter at all.

I'm glad these people aren't coaches. 'Hey team, yeah technically our goal is to win, but if we don't win by 10 that isn't good enough, because the game is changing, uh, somehow.' 'Oh, and we can't win by using the same gameplan. Like, we need to use the other's sides plan, because otherwise, we aren't being fair.'

These people should go over to the "emerging Democratic majority" site, where idiots keep saying Democrats have to win because we imported so many Mexicans and because women hate Republicans because of abortion. Oddly, Democrats have been in retreat at all levels since 1994, but I guess that majority will emerge eventually. Just keep people poor and import another 30 million Mexicans. So Republicans should really not run anyone except female minorities-- from the West coast or Northeast-- because otherwise they might keep winning elections by relying on... UGH.. the majority vote. I hate majorities actually, they're terrible politically...

My election prediction was better than your.  Only one person beat me, I think it was ATFFL, when we put our final prediction up.  I got only one state wrong, and it was a state that I went out on a limb on (Hawaii).

The actual percentages Smith got in SC is irrelevant.  How he fared relative to other Democratic candidates of that era is relevant.  He fared significantly worse in the South than other Democrat did, in part because he was Catholic.

Too big a tent collapses, eh?  Yeah I'd really hate to have all those darkies and beaners in my tent.  What the hell is wrong with you?

If you think the Bush 51% coalition was created to get just enough votes to be able to implement conservative polices, you're crazy.  The Bush coalition is a failed attempt by Karl Rove to build the big tent Soulty and I want.  He's just not very good at it.  Its remarkable how self contradictory you are today.  You claim the country is only changing because of too much immigration, yet the very 51% coalition you idolize is in the middle of creating an amnesty program that goes softer on immigration than anything Clinton or Carter would have dared!  The 51% coalition isn't conservatism by design, its a big tent program that doesn't work.

For someone who likes to pretend to be a great debate champion, you sure suck at it.  After all, one of the first things debaters learn is not to resort to fallacies like straw men.

You say that I said we "need" California, putting quote marks around California as if those had been my words.  here's what I actually said:

He's (Sanford) a southern, male, white, Protestant with a basic Bushesque conservative philosophy that will never appeal to California or other such Democrat states.

So I guess I didn't say anything like what you represented as my position.  Its a straw man!

Here's another.  You claimed I said we need to only nominate women and minorities and only from the north and pacific.  I never said that, I simply said that hey, once in a while, a WASPy motherer might have to wait on the sidelines while a woman or minority gets the nod, or a southerner might have to wait on the sidelines while someone from the Pacific gets the nod.

By the way, imagine if southerners Harold Baker or George Bush had been on the top of ticket in 1980 instead of Pacific Coaster Ronald Reagan.  Why, we'd never have had to sit through those liberal tax cuts and that lefty do gooder dismantling the USSR.  He even went to a Communiist Party meeting and voted for FDR!  The whole Pacific Coast just sounds like Moscow with folks like that.

Yeah, you got served today.  Served with a side of fries bitch.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Notre Dame rules! on March 03, 2005, 08:08:42 pm
Good gracious!  This thread has become unrecognizable.

Let's suffice to say that some anti-Catholic bias exists.  It exists on the GOP side among SOME evangelicals.  It exists on the left among SOME irreligious.

I happen to be a consevative Catholic who voted against the Catholic candidate because I found him to be Catholic in name only, or Christian in name only for that matter.

As for finding a candidate that can win more than 55% of the popular vote, forget it.   I believe that Bush could have, if he had been given even-handed treatment my the mainstream media.   Considering how they bashed him, or even concocted stories to derail his campaign, getting 52% was pretty damn impressive.

I don't believe that a Democrat candidate is going to break 50%, much less 55%, unless they move to the center and nominate---yes you guessed it, a Southern Governor.  That's just my opinion.

As for the GOP nominating a non-Southern candidate, it doesn't look good in the near term.  Most of the well know Northeastern GOP candidates are TOO moderate for the base.  That's why Santorum has a possible shot at it.

As for Sanford, the reason this thread exists, I don't know the slightest thing about him.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 08:09:24 pm
So basically you're biased against the north-east? I think the north-east has had enough bashing from Republicans for political reasons.

No, I'm not.
Run a working class ethnic Catholic from Massachusetts or Rhode Island and I think they'd do pretty well (remember that Tip's approval rating was higher than Reagan's when he retired in '86), run someone who comes across as a WASP though...


Working class people tend not to run for President.

Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Ike Eisenhower, Herbert Hoover.

Gee, that's 7.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 03, 2005, 08:10:42 pm
As for the rest, I'll try to suffer through it when I get back.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Notre Dame rules! on March 03, 2005, 08:15:22 pm
By the late 30's the US economy was once again beginning to flounder, even though we were employing millions through the WPA and the CCC.  Don't kid yourself.  World War II is what ENDED the Great Depression.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 03, 2005, 08:19:48 pm
Good gracious!  This thread has become unrecognizable.

I agree. How the hell did they start arguing about that anyways? This sort of thing happens all too often.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 03, 2005, 08:20:49 pm
By the late 30's the US economy was once again beginning to flounder, even though we were employing millions through the WPA and the CCC.  Don't kid yourself.  World War II is what ENDED the Great Depression.

About 15 million jobs were created under the FDR adminstration from 1933-1941 (before Pearl Harbor). That was an increase of about 50%.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: The Duke on March 03, 2005, 08:23:39 pm
By the late 30's the US economy was once again beginning to flounder, even though we were employing millions through the WPA and the CCC.  Don't kid yourself.  World War II is what ENDED the Great Depression.

About 15 million jobs were created under the FDR adminstration from 1933-1941 (before Pearl Harbor). That was an increase of about 50%.

The unemployment rate went from 25% to 17%, an 8% drop, under the New Deal.  It went from 17% to 9%, another 8% drop, in just two years once war industry revved up.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 03, 2005, 08:27:20 pm
By the late 30's the US economy was once again beginning to flounder, even though we were employing millions through the WPA and the CCC.  Don't kid yourself.  World War II is what ENDED the Great Depression.

About 15 million jobs were created under the FDR adminstration from 1933-1941 (before Pearl Harbor). That was an increase of about 50%.

The unemployment rate went from 25% to 17%, an 8% drop, under the New Deal.  It went from 17% to 9%, another 8% drop, in just two years once war industry revved up.

Unemployment only counts people who both
1. HAD a job
2. Are ACTIVELY looking for a job

It's an overrated statistic.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: The Duke on March 03, 2005, 08:40:52 pm
By the late 30's the US economy was once again beginning to flounder, even though we were employing millions through the WPA and the CCC.  Don't kid yourself.  World War II is what ENDED the Great Depression.

About 15 million jobs were created under the FDR adminstration from 1933-1941 (before Pearl Harbor). That was an increase of about 50%.

The unemployment rate went from 25% to 17%, an 8% drop, under the New Deal.  It went from 17% to 9%, another 8% drop, in just two years once war industry revved up.

Unemployment only counts people who both
1. HAD a job
2. Are ACTIVELY looking for a job

It's an overrated statistic.

You're mom is an overrated statistic.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 03, 2005, 08:47:03 pm
By the late 30's the US economy was once again beginning to flounder, even though we were employing millions through the WPA and the CCC.  Don't kid yourself.  World War II is what ENDED the Great Depression.

About 15 million jobs were created under the FDR adminstration from 1933-1941 (before Pearl Harbor). That was an increase of about 50%.

The unemployment rate went from 25% to 17%, an 8% drop, under the New Deal.  It went from 17% to 9%, another 8% drop, in just two years once war industry revved up.

Unemployment only counts people who both
1. HAD a job
2. Are ACTIVELY looking for a job

It's an overrated statistic.

You're mom is an overrated statistic.

WHOA! Gotta give you points for originality there, John.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: The Duke on March 03, 2005, 08:59:36 pm
Its not original, but its still funny.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: True Federalist on March 03, 2005, 10:39:23 pm
He's also pretty overrated, people are just judging him based on pure potential. Does he have a great record as governor? According to our two South Carolinan posters, both independents, it's hardly stellar.

It's pretty hard for a SC governor to have a stellar record, and Sanford's biggest lack has been in his handling of the General Assembly which is where the power is concentrated in this State.  He’s personally popular and his views are mainstream GOP.  I’ll grant that he’s light on foreign policy, but not as light as Gov. Bush  was in 2000.  Given as how there are plenty of potential VP's with foreign policy credentials, I doubt that unless Iraq is in much worse shape in 2007 than I expect that Sanford's lack of expertise in that area will be a major concern.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 03, 2005, 11:11:52 pm
BRTD,

You are, of course, the original perpetrator of this whole thing.  Thank you for concentrating on one point of my argument in some attempt to discredit me.  This wasn't even a point.  It was a sub-point of a point.  You could have said that is was great of me for being a progressive thinker and thinking that a woman or minority could do the job, but intead, you attacked me for say that Catholics are a minority when pretty much any political science professor who has study voting patterns would agree with me.

actually no. You're basically advocating affirmative action. I will never take anyone's race or gender into account when voting for them in a primary. I will vote for the candidate I like best.

That website you posted is bogus, by the way.  No Catholic would ever descirb themselves as being "slave" to anything, let alone Mary's Immaculate Heart.

yes, it's an incredibly ridiculous loony site that very very few Catholics would agree with. Just like Chick and Paisley's sites are ridiculous loony sites that very very few Protestants agree with.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 03, 2005, 11:14:08 pm
oh and Al, just exactly what percentage of the population would you estimate supports Paisley? Is there any part of the country where a majority of people would be big fans of him? Is he overall perceived as semi-credible or just a huge loon? Scary that people like Pat Robertson are considered semi-credible here, and also scary is Paisley is considered the same in the UK.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: AuH2O on March 03, 2005, 11:29:07 pm
Southerners should "step aside" for an affirmative action nomination?

Guess what-- that's not 51% of the populations view. They were just afraid of Kerry. If you think most Republicans want amnesty, you're living in a dream world. Most HISPANICS don't support amnesty, let in alone Republicans.

I have this weird notion, where the best candidate should get the nod. Hmm, thought that was America, but "Republicans" like soulty and ford apparently disagree. If I'm going to have a racist government, it may as well be led by Democrats...  Republicans that hate the base of their own party.

Bush slid by because of the war, but that's not happening in 2008. There's going to be a line drawn... protect this country's borders, get our finances back in order. If the Republican won't do that, he won't win-- period. I'll help put a Democrat in the White House before being neutral on a RINO or Affirmative Action pick, and so will a lot of people.

Democrats, they just want to win elections. Republicans, according to traitors like ford, are not interested in winning... we have to surrender on the issues so that we can get some magical number and declare ourselves uniters. So give in to socialist medicine, mayhem on the border, massive deficits, the blocking of good judges... just give in. That's what most people that win do-- surrender.

Then some nitwit tries to lecture me on fallacies? lol, incredible. Almost as hilarious as some turncoat lecturing people on the Republican Party.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 03, 2005, 11:34:37 pm
Southerners should "step aside" for an affirmative action nomination?

Guess what-- that's not 51% of the populations view. They were just afraid of Kerry. If you think most Republicans want amnesty, you're living in a dream world. Most HISPANICS don't support amnesty, let  alone Republicans.

I have this weird notion, where the best candidate should get the nod. Hmm, thought that was America, but "Republicans" like soulty and ford apparently disagree. If I'm going to have a racist government, it may as well be led by Democrats... f**ck Republicans that hate the base of their own party.

Bush slid by because of the war, but that's not happening in 2008. There's going to be a line drawn... protect this country's borders, get our finances back in order. If the Republican won't do that, he won't win-- period. I'll help put a Democrat in the White House before being neutral on a RINO or Affirmative Action pick, and so will a lot of people.

Democrats, they just want to win elections. Republicans, according to traitors like ford, are not interested in winning... we have to surrender on the issues so that we can get some magical number and declare ourselves uniters. So give in to socialist medicine, mayhem on the border, massive deficits, the blocking of good judges... just give in. That's what most people that win do-- surrender.

Then some nitwit tries to lecture me on fallacies? lol, incredible. Almost as hilarious as some turncoat lecturing people on the Republican Party.

Just out of curiosity, do you honestly believe that Rice and Gonzalez getting their current jobs had absolutely nothing to do with their races (and thus affirmative action)? If so I have some nice oceanside property in Minnesota to sell you.

(The same goes for all other anti-affirmative action Republicans)


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: AuH2O on March 03, 2005, 11:39:50 pm
Rice? Not so much-- she's worked her way up the foreign policy ladder. Was it a factor? Possibly, but since she's fully qualified, it's hard to complain too much.

Gonzales? I dunno, I think Bush trusts him completely, and that's why he gotten his jobs.

The GOP uses affirmative action all the time, but those two cases are not blatant examples. There are more obvious cases. If the GOP keeps it up, it will be a real "minority" party before too long.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Smash255 on March 04, 2005, 01:56:41 am
Rice? Not so much-- she's worked her way up the foreign policy ladder. Was it a factor? Possibly, but since she's fully qualified, it's hard to complain too much.

Gonzales? I dunno, I think Bush trusts him completely, and that's why he gotten his jobs.

The GOP uses affirmative action all the time, but those two cases are not blatant examples. There are more obvious cases. If the GOP keeps it up, it will be a real "minority" party before too long.

What the GOP tends to do is grab some of the mosst conservative minorities they can find and then act like they represent the vies of the minorities simply because they have a black or hispanic.  You think Gonzalez and Rice (or another minority) would have their positons if they were closer to the mainstream views of their race??  Do you think they would have their positons if they were moderate??  They went the moderate minority route already (though Poweel did deserve the position) but they didn 't get the result they wanted (because Powell dared question the adminstratioon) so as long as they can grab a conservative minority they will do so, so they can claim they reprsent minorities as well & reach-out to them, even though the politics of the minorities they pick don't represent te views of most minorities (or even remotley close in some cases)


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 04, 2005, 03:34:27 am
BRTD,

You are, of course, the original perpetrator of this whole thing.  Thank you for concentrating on one point of my argument in some attempt to discredit me.  This wasn't even a point.  It was a sub-point of a point.  You could have said that is was great of me for being a progressive thinker and thinking that a woman or minority could do the job, but intead, you attacked me for say that Catholics are a minority when pretty much any political science professor who has study voting patterns would agree with me.

actually no. You're basically advocating affirmative action. I will never take anyone's race or gender into account when voting for them in a primary. I will vote for the candidate I like best.

It isn't affirmative action.  The people I was talking about acctually earned their way in.  Affirmative Action is when you set a particular quote, with no regard for whether or not someone earned their way more than anyone else.

That website you posted is bogus, by the way.  No Catholic would ever descirb themselves as being "slave" to anything, let alone Mary's Immaculate Heart.

yes, it's an incredibly ridiculous loony site that very very few Catholics would agree with. Just like Chick and Paisley's sites are ridiculous loony sites that very very few Protestants agree with.
Quote

The difference is, of course, that Jack Chick sells millions of tracts every single year, and guess where they end up?  On my door step.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 04, 2005, 03:43:37 am
Well, soulty, let me begin by noting it's "medal," not "metal," which of course describes certain types of elements (and, in the vernacular, alloys).

Pointing out the spelling mistakes of others is childish and trollish.

Quote
Secondly, note that you claimed I "wasn't Catholic," which was actually a lie.

I didn't know, so I don't see how it can be a "lie".

Quote
Thirdly, Kennedy actually won a good portion of the South, Catholic and all, while losing many Northern states. Actually, Alfred Smith won the Deep South as a Catholic in 1928.

How can you say that?  Kennedy did worse than any other Democrat of that era.  Smith as well.  Not that that is hugely importantant, because I never said that anti-Catholic bias was localized in the south.  Did I?

Quote
Fourthly, even if bias against Catholics still really existed, which it doesn't, you are racist against Southerners, and thus a worse offender.

This is why I can't stand newbs, sometimes.  They have not been around long enough to know what they are talking about when attacking others.  I have probably defended the south far more than any northern poster on this board.

Quote
Fifthly, by pursuing a racist policy against the base of your party, you are essentially a traitor to that party and certainly not welcome in it.

I think I already answered the first part, so I need not go on with that.

So the base of the party has no room for expansion?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 04, 2005, 03:48:54 am
oh and Al, just exactly what percentage of the population would you estimate supports Paisley? Is there any part of the country where a majority of people would be big fans of him? Is he overall perceived as semi-credible or just a huge loon? Scary that people like Pat Robertson are considered semi-credible here, and also scary is Paisley is considered the same in the UK.

Paisley is a hell of a lot worse than pretty much any nutter you have in the U.S.

As for support, in the mainland he's regarded by most people as a nutter (although I'd say something like 5% like him) but in Northern Ireland... well that's when things get scary.

The DUP is the largest political party in Northern Ireland nowadays. It won the Assembly Elections and the Euro Elections comfertably. It will probably win the Westminster and Local Elections in NI this year as well.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 04, 2005, 03:50:02 am
Now, let me ask you a couple of serious questions, AuH2O.

I don't expect you to answer them if you don't want to.

1) Where do you work?

2) In what kind of activities do you generally participate?

3) Do you live in either Northern Virginia or the Virginia Beach area?

4) How active are you in religious functions?

5) Have you ever been told by a friend or girlfriend that they couldn't see you anymore because you were Catholic?

6) Even worse, has your family been split apart because one side is Catholic and the other is not?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 04, 2005, 04:19:35 am
Basically, what I am reading from this conversation is that the Republican Party, in the eyes of its own members, is a party for Southern WASP's only.  We should not attempt to branch out and be leaders let alone leaders of a real cooalition.

Having a vision for leading the country is not nearly as important as holding onto power by sticking to a strategy that sqeeks out wins every 2 years.

We don't need states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, etc. to win, so we shouldn't even bother trying for them.  As long as we have Florida and Ohio, we are good.  No matter how slim our leads are there.

Vision=bad
Servicing the Narrow Interests of the Base Only=good



Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Notre Dame rules! on March 04, 2005, 07:10:37 am
Super,

I don't think that anyone is saying that we shouldn't try to pick off a few more states from the Dems, thoush some like VT, MA, and NY are a waste of time and efort.  However, you don't throw away your base of support (West and South) in order to pick up PA (maybe), or MN (maybe) .  The GOP has been getting much closer to winning those two states with the strategy we currently have.  Why change what works? 

As for alsways nominating Southerners, I agree with you we should try to look for some candidates from other regions.  The problem is that very few Northeasterners or West-coasters are conservative enough to survive the primaries.  Hell, don't blame the South for that, since most of the early primaries are decide by northern and Midwestern states.   By the time the primaries get down here, most of the field of candidates has already dropped out of the race.  In fact, most drop out after just the first to contests.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 04, 2005, 10:54:31 am
BRTD,

You are, of course, the original perpetrator of this whole thing.  Thank you for concentrating on one point of my argument in some attempt to discredit me.  This wasn't even a point.  It was a sub-point of a point.  You could have said that is was great of me for being a progressive thinker and thinking that a woman or minority could do the job, but intead, you attacked me for say that Catholics are a minority when pretty much any political science professor who has study voting patterns would agree with me.

actually no. You're basically advocating affirmative action. I will never take anyone's race or gender into account when voting for them in a primary. I will vote for the candidate I like best.

It isn't affirmative action.  The people I was talking about acctually earned their way in.  Affirmative Action is when you set a particular quote, with no regard for whether or not someone earned their way more than anyone else.

wow, you are ignorant. Quotas != affirmative action. In fact, quotas have been illegal ever since the 1978 Supreme Court decision Board of Regents of University of California v. Bakke. I oppose race based affirmative action, but I will admit many people have no clue what it is. Giving people positions partially because of their race is affirmative action, even if they are also qualified, if their race is a factor, and I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face Rice and Gonzalez's races weren't factors, especially since Republicans kept bringing it up whenever they bashed Democrats for opposing them. And what you have suggested above is affirmative action for your party's nominee.

That website you posted is bogus, by the way.  No Catholic would ever descirb themselves as being "slave" to anything, let alone Mary's Immaculate Heart.

yes, it's an incredibly ridiculous loony site that very very few Catholics would agree with. Just like Chick and Paisley's sites are ridiculous loony sites that very very few Protestants agree with.
Quote

The difference is, of course, that Jack Chick sells millions of tracts every single year, and guess where they end up?  On my door step.
Quote

I know someone who collects them and finds them humorous. Not everyone who likes them is because they agree with them. I find them humorous too, since Chick is so out of the loop it's a wonder anyone takes him seriously.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 04, 2005, 10:56:50 am
6) Even worse, has your family been split apart because one side is Catholic and the other is not?

not directed toward me, but this does apply to my family like I've said before my mother's side is Catholic, and there has never been any type of split, nor have I seen any resentment from anyone on my mother's side toward her or one of her sisters who also renounced the church.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Democratic Hawk on March 04, 2005, 12:35:26 pm
People seem to be forgeting about the CNN poll that showed that Giuliani beats all the other choices for '08, by far, among Republicans (38% I think).  McCain comes in second (10% behind Rudy) and First comes in at 15%.

Pure name recognition.  My sisters like 8 and she knows who Rudy Giuliani is.  My dog knows who Rudy Giuliani is.

I agree. I think Giuliani is only riding high among Republicans because of name recognition. The 'Talibangelicals' won't stand by and watch Giuliani win the GOP nomination simply because he's not conservative enough on the issues

I don't know enough about Governor Sanford to form any opinion on him - but should he run and win the nomination, he'll most likely carry the South as southern Republicans do nowadays and I'd say the chances of him seeing off a liberal Democratic opponent are pretty high

Dave


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 04, 2005, 01:32:36 pm
BRTD,

You are, of course, the original perpetrator of this whole thing.  Thank you for concentrating on one point of my argument in some attempt to discredit me.  This wasn't even a point.  It was a sub-point of a point.  You could have said that is was great of me for being a progressive thinker and thinking that a woman or minority could do the job, but intead, you attacked me for say that Catholics are a minority when pretty much any political science professor who has study voting patterns would agree with me.

actually no. You're basically advocating affirmative action. I will never take anyone's race or gender into account when voting for them in a primary. I will vote for the candidate I like best.

It isn't affirmative action.  The people I was talking about acctually earned their way in.  Affirmative Action is when you set a particular quote, with no regard for whether or not someone earned their way more than anyone else.

wow, you are ignorant. Quotas != affirmative action. In fact, quotas have been illegal ever since the 1978 Supreme Court decision Board of Regents of University of California v. Bakke. I oppose race based affirmative action, but I will admit many people have no clue what it is. Giving people positions partially because of their race is affirmative action, even if they are also qualified, if their race is a factor, and I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face Rice and Gonzalez's races weren't factors, especially since Republicans kept bringing it up whenever they bashed Democrats for opposing them. And what you have suggested above is affirmative action for your party's nominee.

Quotas are used as a part of Affirmative Action.  This is true.  You cannot deny it.  I never advocated giving anyone a possition based on minority status.  I simply said that someone with qualifications who happens to be from a group would be a good choice.  Notice, no one on my list needed to fit tha qualification, I just put it out there.  I find it laughable that people are attacking me for it.

That website you posted is bogus, by the way.  No Catholic would ever descirb themselves as being "slave" to anything, let alone Mary's Immaculate Heart.

yes, it's an incredibly ridiculous loony site that very very few Catholics would agree with. Just like Chick and Paisley's sites are ridiculous loony sites that very very few Protestants agree with.
Quote

The difference is, of course, that Jack Chick sells millions of tracts every single year, and guess where they end up?  On my door step.
Quote

I know someone who collects them and finds them humorous. Not everyone who likes them is because they agree with them. I find them humorous too, since Chick is so out of the loop it's a wonder anyone takes him seriously.
Quote

People do take him seriously though!  You came up with one example of someone who doesn't.  That does not account for the millions of those things that he sells every years.  And, as I said, you don't have to agree with Chick full tilt, or even know who he is in order to agree with some of what he says.

Do people have to be full out socialist libertines, like you, to agree with everything you say?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 04, 2005, 01:37:34 pm
Quotas may be a form of affirmative action, but it's irrelevant now. They are illegal. And it's not the form of affirmative action you are advocating. Taking anyone's race into account at all is affirmative action, even if it's not the top priority.

A bunch of fundagelicals may like Chick, yeah, but they are still a very very very small portion of the population, and of Protestants. Do you believe most members of National Council of Churches denominations like Chick?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: AuH2O on March 04, 2005, 02:40:25 pm
Now, let me ask you a couple of serious questions, AuH2O.

I don't expect you to answer them if you don't want to.

1) Where do you work?

2) In what kind of activities do you generally participate?

3) Do you live in either Northern Virginia or the Virginia Beach area?

4) How active are you in religious functions?

5) Have you ever been told by a friend or girlfriend that they couldn't see you anymore because you were Catholic?

6) Even worse, has your family been split apart because one side is Catholic and the other is not?

1) Currently? Nowhere.. the last couple years I've worked for a law firm, this summer I'll work in D.C.

2) I'm not sure what "activities" means. I like playing golf, playing guitar, going to concerts, partying, the usual.

3) Virginia Beach but I go to school in Greenville, SC

4) Now? Not very, I just go to Church on holidays. But I used to be more active, particularly during the Confirmation process of course.

5) No. At school, if I find out someone else or a few of us are Catholic in a given spot, sometimes we joke around and are like "yeah for Catholics!" just because it's mostly protestant, but it's all in jest. If there is a division it's between religious/non-religious.

6) No, actually the exact opposite. My dad and his family are Jewish (mom's side Catholic). His mother and my mom's mother (perhaps the fathers but they were more laid back I think) were not overly pleased at first when they were dating-- this was the 60s-- but got over it quickly and have had a good relationship for decades. My parents have been married almost 28 years. My dad attends Church on certain holidays and for special occasions (i.e. first Communion), and we go to Bar Mitzvahs and the like on his side. Never been a problem with anyone of either religion.

Actually, some people think I'm Jewish, and I've never had any kind of negative experience as a result of that either. Though I'm not sure how many people think that-- some people think I'm from the Iberian peninsula, some think Eastern European...


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 04, 2005, 03:13:45 pm
Basically, what I am reading from this conversation is that the Republican Party, in the eyes of its own members, is a party for Southern WASP's only.  We should not attempt to branch out and be leaders let alone leaders of a real cooalition.

Having a vision for leading the country is not nearly as important as holding onto power by sticking to a strategy that sqeeks out wins every 2 years.

We don't need states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, etc. to win, so we shouldn't even bother trying for them.  As long as we have Florida and Ohio, we are good.  No matter how slim our leads are there.

Vision=bad
Servicing the Narrow Interests of the Base Only=good



Soulty, the GOP made a conscious decision to become a southern-oriented party. You're just reaping what your predecessors have sown.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Democratic Hawk on March 05, 2005, 05:08:04 am
Basically, what I am reading from this conversation is that the Republican Party, in the eyes of its own members, is a party for Southern WASP's only.  We should not attempt to branch out and be leaders let alone leaders of a real cooalition.

Having a vision for leading the country is not nearly as important as holding onto power by sticking to a strategy that sqeeks out wins every 2 years.

We don't need states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, etc. to win, so we shouldn't even bother trying for them.  As long as we have Florida and Ohio, we are good.  No matter how slim our leads are there.

Vision=bad
Servicing the Narrow Interests of the Base Only=good



Soulty, the GOP made a conscious decision to become a southern-oriented party. You're just reaping what your predecessors have sown.

Would that have been the 'Nixon Strategy'?

Dave


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 05, 2005, 01:01:15 pm
Basically, what I am reading from this conversation is that the Republican Party, in the eyes of its own members, is a party for Southern WASP's only.  We should not attempt to branch out and be leaders let alone leaders of a real cooalition.

Having a vision for leading the country is not nearly as important as holding onto power by sticking to a strategy that sqeeks out wins every 2 years.

We don't need states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, etc. to win, so we shouldn't even bother trying for them.  As long as we have Florida and Ohio, we are good.  No matter how slim our leads are there.

Vision=bad
Servicing the Narrow Interests of the Base Only=good



Soulty, the GOP made a conscious decision to become a southern-oriented party. You're just reaping what your predecessors have sown.

Would that have been the 'Nixon Strategy'?

Dave

It started with Barry Goldwater, but yeah, it was Nixon that perfected it.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 05, 2005, 03:57:55 pm
Its not like I want the South out of our party, or anything.  I would much rather have them in, believe me.  I'm glad that we have such a solid base.

All I'm saying is that it wouldn't hurt any to expand the base and win over more states.

Right now, Missouri is not in the "base".  Ohio is not in the base.  Iowa is not in the base.  Florida is not in the base.  Nevada and New Mexico are not in the base.  Without them, we can't win.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 05, 2005, 04:01:20 pm
Its not like I want the South out of our party, or anything.  I would much rather have them in, believe me.  I'm glad that we have such a solid base.

All I'm saying is that it wouldn't hurt any to expand the base and win over more states.

Right now, Missouri is not in the "base".  Ohio is not in the base.  Iowa is not in the base.  Florida is not in the base.  Nevada and New Mexico are not in the base.  Without them, we can't win.

and you just can't magically add them while keeping the far right policies that your base in the south demands. When a party has a far right base, it can't add moderate states to the base.

P.S. There is no such thing as a national party outside of a one party system. Deal with it.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: The Duke on March 05, 2005, 04:05:53 pm
BRTD,

Quotas still exist.  They are de facto quotas, not de jure quotas.  Simply calibrate the preference to achieve a predetermined outcome, which is exactly what almost all Universities have done.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 05, 2005, 04:07:10 pm
Well like I've said I don't support quotas or race based affirmative action. I just find it ridiculous Republicans can whine about it, and then use it for their cabinet appointments and nominating candidates.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Sam Spade on March 05, 2005, 04:07:15 pm
Its not like I want the South out of our party, or anything.  I would much rather have them in, believe me.  I'm glad that we have such a solid base.

All I'm saying is that it wouldn't hurt any to expand the base and win over more states.

Right now, Missouri is not in the "base".  Ohio is not in the base.  Iowa is not in the base.  Florida is not in the base.  Nevada and New Mexico are not in the base.  Without them, we can't win.

Of course, Super, by your definition of "base", Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are the not in the base either for Democrats.

We just live in very divided times politically in the Presidential realm.  I honestly don't see that changing in the near future, either.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 05, 2005, 04:14:32 pm
Two elections makes "times"?

One problem with the internet and all that is that it causes us all to lose our perspective at times.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 05, 2005, 04:15:47 pm
Two elections makes "times"?

One problem with the internet and all that is that it causes us all to lose our perspective at times.

you can't deny the population is very divided on Bush.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: A18 on March 05, 2005, 04:19:24 pm
Appointing a black person to your cabinet is not affirmative action. Appointing a black person because he's black is affirmative action.

The population is divided on Bush, but for what, a year and a half?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Sam Spade on March 05, 2005, 04:21:35 pm
Two elections makes "times"?

One problem with the internet and all that is that it causes us all to lose our perspective at times.

Actually, Al, its been the last three elections, or the time period from 1996-2004.  1996, 1998 and 2000 were evenly divided in terms of national congressional vote (49%-49%) and in 1996, Clinton only got 49% of the popular vote.

2002 and 2004, both had the Republicans up 51%-47% in terms of Congressional vote.

Whether that continues or not is a grand question, but I will continue to group the past 10 years together as "present times", because they are present times and there has not been very much variation in between them.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 05, 2005, 04:27:04 pm
Slight problem: where the two parties are strongest at Congressional level isn't the same as at Presidential level. Similer, yes. The same? No.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Compassion Fills the Void on March 05, 2005, 04:29:24 pm
Appointing a black person to your cabinet is not affirmative action. Appointing a black person because he's black is affirmative action.

like I said, if you honestly think Rice and Gonzalez would've gotten their jobs if they were white I have some nice warm oceanside property in Minnesota to sell you.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Sam Spade on March 05, 2005, 04:30:23 pm
Slight problem: where the two parties are strongest at Congressional level isn't the same as at Presidential level. Similer, yes. The same? No.

True, but you'd be surprised how all the gerrymanders tend to balance themselves out. 

It's a fair gauge in looking at trends, people like Michael Barone and Charlie Cook have been looking at those numbers for years in analyzing where the country is moving politically.

I'm not basing it entirely for my analysis at all, but it's something I always keep in the back of my mind when looking at numbers.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 05, 2005, 04:31:48 pm
I would actually argue that gerrymanders just distort the figures.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Sam Spade on March 05, 2005, 04:36:52 pm
I would actually argue that gerrymanders just distort the figures.

I would disagree.  For example, Maryland gerrymanders are balanced out by Pennsylvania gerrymanders.

In the end, it comes out to being fairly close, though not entirely accurate.

But as House and Senate elections have started to revolve more around national issues rather than local ones, the numbers have shown much more direct causality than say in the 1980s for example.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 05, 2005, 11:47:15 pm
Its not like I want the South out of our party, or anything.  I would much rather have them in, believe me.  I'm glad that we have such a solid base.

All I'm saying is that it wouldn't hurt any to expand the base and win over more states.

Right now, Missouri is not in the "base".  Ohio is not in the base.  Iowa is not in the base.  Florida is not in the base.  Nevada and New Mexico are not in the base.  Without them, we can't win.

Of course, Super, by your definition of "base", Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are the not in the base either for Democrats.

We just live in very divided times politically in the Presidential realm.  I honestly don't see that changing in the near future, either.

But when that time does come, which side do we want to be onto.  Every moment we dely is another 10 electoral votes that we are losing once the breech closes and "divided times" are over.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 06, 2005, 04:29:55 am
I would actually argue that gerrymanders just distort the figures.

I would disagree.  For example, Maryland gerrymanders are balanced out by Pennsylvania gerrymanders.

In the end, it comes out to being fairly close, though not entirely accurate.

But as House and Senate elections have started to revolve more around national issues rather than local ones, the numbers have shown much more direct causality than say in the 1980s for example.

Gerrymandering probably doesn't distort the overall summary figures a great deal, but it massivily distorts where those numbers are coming from making any comparision between Presidential and Congressional numbers somewhat meaningless.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Notre Dame rules! on March 08, 2005, 10:11:55 pm
Gerrymandering has nearly killed the Democrat Party in the South.  By concentrating black voters into super majority districts, they have increased the number of black Congressional seats, while at the same time, virtually guaranteed that any white majority district will vote Republican.  There are exceptions, of course, but the trend has been that fewer and fewer white Democrats can get elected anywhere in the South. 

Black Democrats would much rather vote for blsack Democrat to represent them rather than a white Democrat, which is understandable--I suppose.

The  majority white district's Democrat base is considerably weakended in the process. 

So, while gerrymandering has greatly increased the number of black representatives in Congress, it has also served to bolster the GOP majority in Congress as a whole.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: A18 on March 08, 2005, 11:19:47 pm
It's political gerrymandering, not racial gerrymandering. The fact that blacks happen to virtually all be Democrats makes the two look similar, when in reality, they're not.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Notre Dame rules! on March 08, 2005, 11:33:15 pm
The Dems were all in favor of race-based districts, the thinking being that a grateful black population would continue to vote Democrat, which it did.  However, they didn't vote for just any Democrat, only black ones.

The GOP, who initially opposed the idea, found that it worked in their favor as well.  It concentrated Democrat voters in majority black districts.

You can say it wasn't racial gerrymandering, but since much of it was designed to increase black representationin Congress, how can you claim it was anything but.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: A18 on March 08, 2005, 11:41:37 pm
I thought you were saying the Republicans did it, which would be for political purposes. Not racially motivated ones.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Notre Dame rules! on March 08, 2005, 11:45:23 pm
okay, I see where you're coming from.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 09, 2005, 01:24:18 am
I thought you were saying the Republicans did it, which would be for political purposes. Not racially motivated ones.

In this case, the political and racial reasons are the same.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: A18 on March 09, 2005, 01:25:38 am
That's like saying firing a black guy for doing a lousy job is racist, because black people do lousy jobs.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: nick on March 09, 2005, 01:25:43 am
Hey Bob, Im gonna' PM my 2008 blog Im working on.  So far I only have the Democratic rankings done.  Take a peak, tell me what you think, and if you have any suggestions on the layout or color or anything let me know.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 09, 2005, 01:27:53 am
Hey Bob, Im gonna' PM my 2008 blog Im working on.  So far I only have the Democratic rankings done.  Take a peak, tell me what you think, and if you have any suggestions on the layout or color or anything let me know.

Okay, sounds cool.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 09, 2005, 01:29:22 am
That's like saying firing a black guy for doing a lousy job is racist, because black people do lousy jobs.

No offense, but what the hell are you talking about?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 09, 2005, 01:31:06 am
Gerrymandering has nearly killed the Democrat Party in the South.  By concentrating black voters into super majority districts, they have increased the number of black Congressional seats, while at the same time, virtually guaranteed that any white majority district will vote Republican.  There are exceptions, of course, but the trend has been that fewer and fewer white Democrats can get elected anywhere in the South. 

Black Democrats would much rather vote for blsack Democrat to represent them rather than a white Democrat, which is understandable--I suppose.

The  majority white district's Democrat base is considerably weakended in the process. 

So, while gerrymandering has greatly increased the number of black representatives in Congress, it has also served to bolster the GOP majority in Congress as a whole.

Yes, that law requiring minority majority districts has been very effectively used against the Democrats by southern Republicans. We end up with a few 60% black, 85% Democratic districts, and then all of the rest of the districts are Republican. It's a very effective political tool that I oppose.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: A18 on March 09, 2005, 01:32:05 am
That's like saying firing a black guy for doing a lousy job is racist, because black people do lousy jobs.

No offense, but what the hell are you talking about?

Racial and business motivations are the same in this sitution, according to your logic.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 09, 2005, 01:36:05 am
That's like saying firing a black guy for doing a lousy job is racist, because black people do lousy jobs.

No offense, but what the hell are you talking about?

Racial and business motivations are the same in this sitution, according to your logic.

No. I said that the political implications were the same as the political ones, which is true.

I still don't see your point, honestly.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: A18 on March 09, 2005, 01:37:35 am
The political implications were the same as the political ones...

Erm, okay...I guess I can't argue with that... :)


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Rob on March 09, 2005, 01:39:17 am
The political implications were the same as the political ones...

Erm, okay...I guess I can't argue with that... :)

You're damn right you can't. ;)


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: True Federalist on March 09, 2005, 10:51:52 pm
I favor school choice, but Sanford's F-ed up scheme is terrible.  All it will do is give a tax-break to those who already home school or send their kids to private schools.  It's too small to provide help for those who send their kids to public school because they can't afford the cost of other options, but large enough to cost the state government a lot of revenue from those who would have chosen those other options anyway.  Sanford has put too much of his political capital on this lame brain idea for him to remain a serious 2008 Preseidential possibility if it doesn't pass, but if it does pass it's not going to improve our schools one bit.  However, it's passage will improve Sanford's 2008 primary chances, as such schemes are a favorite of many GOP core voters.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: Bob Dole '96 on March 10, 2005, 08:25:04 am
Its going to be Jeb, most likely, so no.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: hawkeye59 on August 11, 2010, 06:36:41 am
LOL
I know it's been 5 years... but yeah.


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: feeblepizza on August 11, 2010, 04:04:06 pm
LOL
I know it's been 5 years... but yeah.

It's funny how laughable a lot of these pre-2008 threads are nowadays :)

I guess our 2012 predictions will be laughed at after five years though, too, won't they?


Title: Re: SC Gov Mark Sanford
Post by: phk on August 12, 2010, 02:35:10 pm
Lock.