Republican Presidential Candidate 2012 - Pt 2

[GoodSpeak]

I think there's a seat at some table, somewhere, for virtually any aspirant to national office to make a soft landing after they either lose, give up or fail to run for any further terms in office, and I don't think that phenomenon is particular to Republicans.

I do agree with Coulter's observation that the GOP's agenda is *currently* being guided by charlatans and hacks, but I disagree that a Grover Norquist type solution is likely to change anything in a way of for the better. In fact, that's sort of how they got into this position to start with, isn't it? They just need better candidates; people who don't make John Kerry look like the model of consistency in political ideology would be good.

I find it more than a little bit interesting that a hack writer in Coulter is calling out GOP hacks.



The irony was not lost on me.

[Uli]

I think there's a seat at some table, somewhere, for virtually any aspirant to national office to make a soft landing after they either lose, give up or fail to run for any further terms in office, and I don't think that phenomenon is particular to Republicans.

I do agree with Coulter's observation that the GOP's agenda is *currently* being guided by charlatans and hacks, but I disagree that a Grover Norquist type solution is likely to change anything in a way of for the better. In fact, that's sort of how they got into this position to start with, isn't it? They just need better candidates; people who don't make John Kerry look like the model of consistency in political ideology would be good.

Coulter and the Republican leadership shoud've read this forum more often.

[crawjo]

I think the Republican Party's future is ultimately with the Chris Christies of the world. They need someone with a forceful personality who can earn the respect of the base (older, white, evangelical voters) while challenging them on some things and giving the party a fighting chance with younger voters. As long as the most extreme voices in the party keep setting the agenda, the GOP is going to remain in a funk. If Romney wins the nomination and loses the election, some will interpret this as yet another sign that the party needs to become MORE socially conservative. Santorum or whoever will have a platform to run on in 2016, but by then I think a politician of greater talent (maybe Christie, maybe somebody else) will emerge who will lead the Republicans away from some of their worst excesses (and undoubtedly towards new horrible things I haven't thought of yet, as usually is the case).

[GoodSpeak]

Christie has already said, numerous times, he isn't interested in the White House.


That leaves the serious quaffing of some big time Humble Pie on the part of the republicans.


Pride always cometh before the fall.

[steve(thelil)]

I think the Republican Party's future is ultimately with the Chris Christies of the world. They need someone with a forceful personality who can earn the respect of the base (older, white, evangelical voters) while challenging them on some things and giving the party a fighting chance with younger voters. As long as the most extreme voices in the party keep setting the agenda, the GOP is going to remain in a funk. If Romney wins the nomination and loses the election, some will interpret this as yet another sign that the party needs to become MORE socially conservative. Santorum or whoever will have a platform to run on in 2016, but by then I think a politician of greater talent (maybe Christie, maybe somebody else) will emerge who will lead the Republicans away from some of their worst excesses (and undoubtedly towards new horrible things I haven't thought of yet, as usually is the case).

I think you make strong points here. But at this time, as the GOP is in their 4th straight Presidential Campaign in which there is a strong and probably growing theme of "anyone who disagrees with me is un-American," it's hard to envision them turning to a candidate who will challenge the base on some things in the near future. I have to think that's one of the reasons Christie didn't run. As a non-candidate he seems like a future GOP knight in shining armor, but if he ran i would NOT be surprised if he could be repainted as a northeastern liberal rather quickly. I mean this is a party that has seen attacks on Newt for being a liberal.

[Jett]

I'm not a historian nor an educator but I'd like to know if there has been other types of Roe v. Wade's that have polarized this country as long as this has ?

I ask this simply because I think Roe v. Wade is being used as racial tool more then anything else.

You're closer to being a historian than you think as shown by mention of "the racial tool" in re Roe v Wade.

To answer your question (and this is first year law school stuff): Google Plessy v Ferguson a 1896 case which affirmed the "seperate but equal doctrine." This was the law of the land until another landmark case (that ranks with Roe, Brown v Board of Education of Topeka in 1954, overturned Plessy.

There is a strong racial element involved in Roe as heard by the screams and gnashing of teeth by the radical, religious right, lunatic, mainstream, no longer fringe element of American society insisting that Black women use abortion as birth control, liberals want to destroy the "traditional" family and so on. You know the routine I'm certain. Not to mention the murder of doctors who perform abortions in various clinics around our country by so-called Christians in the name of Jesus.

And whilst we remain in this campaign season let's not forget that candidate Rick Sanitarium is on record as stating that The Civil War and The Civil Rights Movement were both major mistakes! You can look it up.

One of my first year law professors (a retired federal judge) told us that some of the finest literature extant is to be found in the writings of our Supreme Court, Federal Courts and Courts of Appeal. You can no doubt find some of the pleadings in Brown v Board of Education on line and some excellent writing is to be found therein.

It's pure speculation by me but I believe that the 'publicans have hurt themselves over the past few elections due to their stand on this women's issue. Too many Republican women support their right to choose and no matter what they say afterwards I suspect that large numbers of them have voted for the more liberal candidate in privacy. Abortion has no business being mixed up in politics and related matters. It's really a non-political issue.

Jett
Del Mar, CA

[GoodSpeak]

I think you make strong points here. But at this time, as the GOP is in their 4th straight Presidential Campaign in which there is a strong and probably growing theme of "anyone who disagrees with me is un-American," it's hard to envision them turning to a candidate who will challenge the base on some things in the near future. I have to think that's one of the reasons Christie didn't run. As a non-candidate he seems like a future GOP knight in shining armor, but if he ran i would NOT be surprised if he could be repainted as a northeastern liberal rather quickly. I mean this is a party that has seen attacks on Newt for being a liberal.

Aside from the amazingly long run-on sentence at the start of your post, I think Christie would be a disaster for the GOP.

Staunchly anti-public education, anti-academic, anti-immigrant and a mirror reflection of the tea party yutzes, he wouldn't stand a chance.

[Bourne]

Aside from the amazingly long run-on sentence at the start of your post, I think Christie would be a disaster for the GOP.

Staunchly anti-public education, anti-academic, anti-immigrant and a mirror reflection of the tea party yutzes, he wouldn't stand a chance.

Are you being serious?

[walto]

You're closer to being a historian than you think as shown by mention of "the racial tool" in re Roe v Wade.

To answer your question (and this is first year law school stuff): Google Plessy v Ferguson a 1896 case which affirmed the "seperate but equal doctrine." This was the law of the land until another landmark case (that ranks with Roe, Brown v Board of Education of Topeka in 1954, overturned Plessy.

There is a strong racial element involved in Roe as heard by the screams and gnashing of teeth by the radical, religious right, lunatic, mainstream, no longer fringe element of American society insisting that Black women use abortion as birth control, liberals want to destroy the "traditional" family and so on. You know the routine I'm certain. Not to mention the murder of doctors who perform abortions in various clinics around our country by so-called Christians in the name of Jesus.

And whilst we remain in this campaign season let's not forget that candidate Rick Sanitarium is on record as stating that The Civil War and The Civil Rights Movement were both major mistakes! You can look it up.

One of my first year law professors (a retired federal judge) told us that some of the finest literature extant is to be found in the writings of our Supreme Court, Federal Courts and Courts of Appeal. You can no doubt find some of the pleadings in Brown v Board of Education on line and some excellent writing is to be found therein.

It's pure speculation by me but I believe that the 'publicans have hurt themselves over the past few elections due to their stand on this women's issue. Too many Republican women support their right to choose and no matter what they say afterwards I suspect that large numbers of them have voted for the more liberal candidate in privacy. Abortion has no business being mixed up in politics and related matters. It's really a non-political issue.

Jett
Del Mar, CA

I think other examples involve "public displays of religion." Those cases just never seem to go away.

[hornplayer]

... I think Christie would be a disaster for the GOP.

Staunchly anti-public education, anti-academic, anti-immigrant and a mirror reflection of the tea party yutzes, he wouldn't stand a chance.

Although I often disagree with Goody, I think his description of Christie is spot on. And I'm a resident of the great state of New Jersey... He is a disaster for New Jersey, that's for sure.

[Bourne]

But he is everything Republicans want in their candidates. I do not see how he could be a disaster for the GOP.

[GoodSpeak]

But he is everything Republicans want in their candidates. I do not see how he could be a disaster for the GOP.

I was assuming they would want to win elections.

[GoodSpeak]

Although I often disagree with Goody, I think his description of Christie is spot on. And I'm a resident of the great state of New Jersey... He is a disaster for New Jersey, that's for sure.

Thanks, June.

[bluenoter]

I think you make strong points here. But at this time, as the GOP is in their 4th straight Presidential Campaign in which there is a strong and probably growing theme of "anyone who disagrees with me is un-American," it's hard to envision them turning to a candidate who will challenge the base on some things in the near future. . . .

Aside from the amazingly long run-on sentence at the start of your post, I think Christie would be a disaster for the GOP.

I know nothing about Christie, but lest anyone think otherwise, that's not a run-on sentence; there's nothing wrong with its grammar.

[Pete C]

I know nothing about Christie, but lest anyone think otherwise, that's not a run-on sentence; there's nothing wrong with its grammar.

That's correct. It's just a longish sentence with a subordinate (I think it's subordinate) clause in the middle.

[Jett]

That's correct. It's just a longish sentence with a subordinate (I think it's subordinate) clause in the middle.

There's a piece of paper somewhere that claims I earned a degree in this subject and I'm not saying it's untrue but...well, with spellcheck and a secretary plus the passage of a few decades (how's that for a disclaimer?) could it be a coordinating conjunction? even though there is the period to consider and I think that means it usually follows a "but," but...point is I agree that the sentence is fine as wine. Big problem with it is how the hell could you tweet it? Obviously it's getting late out here on the Left Coast.

[walto]

OTOH, this--

Aside from the amazingly long run-on sentence at the start of your post, I think Christie would be a disaster for the GOP.

--by the guy with the nads to complain about somebody else's grammar, is (surprise, surprise) itself pretty nasty.

[Bourne]

My grammar might be the worst in history. I have to imagine you people have a blast dissecting my posts.

[walto]

What I do (mostly) is leave out leters and sometms whole.

[Bourne]

I would think that has more to do with typing skills.

My spelling tends to be decent but I fall over the cliff when it comes to grammar and composition.

[GoodSpeak]

I know nothing about Christie, but lest anyone think otherwise, that's not a run-on sentence; there's nothing wrong with its grammar.

I'm talking syntax, you're talking grammar.


That sentence needs revision.

That's correct. It's just a longish sentence with a subordinate (I think it's subordinate) clause in the middle.

An independent clause. Drop "as" and it is a stand alone.

Beginning a sentence with a conjunction is also bad practice. I'm guilty of it, too.

Bottom line: A poorly written sentence. Needs revision; create two sentences, drop "but" in favor of "however" and voila! Two well penned sentences which better clarify the writer's point.

[GoodSpeak]

I would think that has more to do with typing skills.

My spelling tends to be decent but I fall over the cliff when it comes to grammar and composition.

Occupational hazard for me.

I used to be a pretty good speller. Now, I am chained to the spell checker or dictionary.

My hunt-and-peck typing skill doesn't help....but I am up to two fingers



It's a big club on this BBS, Bourne. No worries.

[Bourne]

Oh I am not worried. Ever get a good look at the average high school graduate these days? Their spelling and grammar make me feel like a genius. Likely a byproduct of the texting age.

I tend to be lenient concerning such things. If you get your point across what is the big deal? Correct?

[GoodSpeak]

Oh I am not worried. Ever get a good look at the average high school graduate these days? Their spelling and grammar make me feel like a genius. Likely a byproduct of the texting age.

I tend to be lenient concerning such things. If you get your point across what is the big deal? Correct?

In my Speech class, getting the point across is all that matters.

In my English classes, well, syntax and grammar count, but if the thought process is there I don't ding them too badly. Sadly, Twitter, FaceBook, My Space and e-mail have all made teenagers lazy writers. It is an uphill battle in my world.

On a BBS where people are off the clock, it shouldn't much matter. My comment was for spitballing purposes only. Personally, don't care one way or the other. My own writing tends to be a bit loose on this BBS, as well. No big, IMHO.


I'm off the clock, too

[steve(thelil)]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1347878.html

[bluenoter]

An independent clause. Drop "as" and it is a stand alone.

. . . and if my uncle had ovaries, he'd be my aunt.
 

[Ron Thorne]

. . . and if my uncle had ovaries, he'd be my aunt.

May I quote you on that?

[bluenoter]

May I quote you on that?

Sure, but as you may know, I only inverted a common rejoinder. Glad you enjoyed it.
 

[walto]

Two well penned sentences which better clarify the writer's point.

Bunch of problems with that sorry excuse for English too. I think your best bet would be to shut up.

Not that that suggestion has ever taken hold with you, whether the topic is grammar or any of the other areas in which you like to offer instruction.

[Blue Train]

Bunch of problems with that sorry excuse for English too. I think your best bet would be to shut up.

Not that suggestion has ever taken hold with you, whether the topic is grammar or any of the other areas you in which you like to offer instruction.

haha