2
   

Future President?

 
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2004 09:23 pm
So the moral of the story is that Republicans are the first political group to elect people of minority. So much for the democrats and there party of the people!
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2004 09:45 pm
It's a tad more complex than that, Baldimo. Nice surmise, though.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 09:31 am
Jeanette Rankin wasn't exactly a model Republican being often accused of socialistic ideals and a member of the ACLU, she campaigned after one term in the House for a Senate seat and lost overwhelmingly. Her vote against WWI was the primary reason given for her subsequent failure in politics.

Rainey was elected during a time when the Republican party was liberal and the Democrats were the conservatives. Although many believe they are talented at warping history to suit their own agenda, it's as transparant as Saran Wrap.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 07:09 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
... and the first woman to be elected to the US Senate in her own right (no husband or father preceding her), Paula Hawkins, was a Republican.

Margaret Chase Smith (R-Maine) was elected to the senate in her own right in 1948. She had previously served in the House of Representatives, initially filling the vacancy left by the death of her husband in 1940. At the time of her election to the senate, then, her husband (who had never served in the senate) had been dead for eight years.

Nancy Kassebaum (R-Kan.) was elected in her own right to the senate in 1978. Her father, Alf Landon, was governor of Kansas from 1932 to 1936. He never served in the senate.

Paula Hawkins, therefore, was the third woman to be elected to the senate in her own right.


So in effect, not only was the first woman elected, in her own right, to the US Senate a Republican, the next two were as well!

Thanks for the correction. Find any others?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 07:19 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
Jeanette Rankin wasn't exactly a model Republican being often accused of socialistic ideals and a member of the ACLU, she campaigned after one term in the House for a Senate seat and lost overwhelmingly. Her vote against WWI was the primary reason given for her subsequent failure in politics.

Rainey was elected during a time when the Republican party was liberal and the Democrats were the conservatives. Although many believe they are talented at warping history to suit their own agenda, it's as transparant as Saran Wrap.


And the Republican Party was liberal when Brookes, Chase/Kasselbaum/Hawkins, Larrazolo, Fong or Rankin were elected?

True, Rankin didn't fit the Republican bill, but she was elected as one. Of course Chase/Kasselbaum/Hawkins, Larrazolo, Fong and Joseph Rainey weren't would be socialists when they ran and won.

So exactly where is the warping of history LW?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 08:13 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Thanks for the correction. Find any others?

Really, Finn, you can't expect me to correct all of your mistakes. I already have a full-time job.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 08:46 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Thanks for the correction. Find any others?

Really, Finn, you can't expect me to correct all of your mistakes. I already have a full-time job.


Oh come on Joe, if your corrections are going to continue to advance my point, surely you can spare a little more time.

I tell you what, you continue to correct my posts and I'll promise not to correct yours.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2004 08:22 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
I tell you what, you continue to correct my posts and I'll promise not to correct yours.

You offer cut glass and expect diamonds in exchange? Hardly an equitable bargain.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2004 08:31 am
cubic finnconium
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2004 09:24 am
Latest news on the GOP's attempts to find a candidate to run against Obama:
    "Illinois Republican leaders on Tuesday neared the end of their frustrating search for a candidate in the U.S. Senate race, selecting two African-Americans as finalists for the party's nomination to face Democrat Barack Obama, who also is black. Following a meeting that lasted more than seven hours, the Illinois Republican State Central Committee selected Alan Keyes and Dr. Andrea Grubb Barthwell, two candidates who will likely face an uphill battle against Obama. Keyes has already lost two Senate races in Maryland and has few connections to Illinois while Barthwell boasts a long resume but has never run for elected office."

Choosing Keyes would be the clearest sign yet that the Illinois Republican party is in a state of complete chaos. Not only has he spent no time whatsoever in the state, but Keyes is a pro-life absolutist, whereas Illinois voters prefer their Republicans to treat the issue of abortion like they treat the weather: talk a lot about it but do nothing to change it.

As for Barthwell:
    " Even before becoming a finalist, Barthwell had already been stung by controversy. While working in the drug czar's office, where she served as a deputy director, an internal report showed she engaged in "lewd and abusive behavior" at a party for workers. Barthwell apparently made remarks questioning the sexual orientation of a male subordinate and used a kaleidoscope to make sexual gestures. Barthwell has said she had joined with a few staff members who were making jokes about a male staff member's sexual orientation. She called it "lighthearted humor" and said the man who was the subject of the jokes did not seem to take offense. She also denied any inappropriate use of the kaleidoscope."
Truly, I believe that the last sentence -- "She also denied any inappropriate use of the kaleidoscope" -- is the first time in the history of the English language that such a statement has ever been committed to paper.

At the outset of the campaign, I though Obama would get around 55-60% of the vote. I now foresee him getting around 65-75% of the vote. It will be a landslide of historic proportions.

More of the story here (requires registration), or here (no registration required).
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2004 01:30 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Truly, I believe that the last sentence -- "She also denied any inappropriate use of the kaleidoscope" -- is the first time in the history of the English language that such a statement has ever been committed to paper.

LOL!!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2004 02:26 pm
He's right, too. I did a google search, even substituting the final noun with other possibilities, such as 'lightstick' or 'furnace filter'. Nothing.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Future President?
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 10:00:08