Nightmare on Elm Street for the Dems

[anatta]

So petty, it was all over the news, man. On that forum on Red State, then later on the well informed 2+2 Politics forum multiple times.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
So you end up with ridiculous moments like Andrea Mitchell of Newsweek claiming that most Americans want Scooter Libby pardoned on MSNBC (when 69% opposed a pardon) and such.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe the poll. Bet over 50% of Americans never heard of Scooter Libby.

[ChoicestHops]

[ QUOTE ]
Im not predicting anything this far in advance, but i can tell you its Shrillary who's facing an uphill battle. If there is continuing good news in Iraq then the Dems have no platform.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to be kidding. The majority of Americans are disgusted with the GOP presidency right now. To top it off there is no good candidate for them next election either. Giuliani, who will most definitely represent them, will be political suicide since the huge religious vote will literally write in another candidate. Bush will more than likely be the last Republican president the U.S. ever has with the increase of black and hispanic voting that will sway the way to Democrat candidates.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> Believe what you want. Read my posts here and on SMP and find anything that is supportive of religion or the religious. I am as hard an atheist as there is. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

My bad, you didn't make the posts I thought you made.

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">Coherent enough for anyone with reading comprehension abilities. Your conclusion that the nuclear family is not "natural" is not supportable, nor is the opposite conclusion. Given the fact that nature has done a pretty good job for herself, and that the nuclear family has proven to be the most productive and stable, I tend to lean toward it being natural. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Nature doesn't do a "pretty good job." Nature doesn't do anything. And there is plenty of support that human beings didn't evolve to live in nuclear families, or even to be monogamous. This ranges from biological traits (gender dimorphism) to behavior/paternity studies to anthropology. I don't know what you mean when you say that the nuclear family is stable and productive - can you back that up?

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">I don't know what path you are using to get there. Someone said there is "no such thing as natural". OI responded that in the context of this tread of course there is such a thing as "natural" since we are talking about human behavior which is governed by nature, including evolution. You are so off base in what youre reading into my statements you must be inventing things to be disagreeable. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution is not "governed by nature." Evolution is simply a process that occurs in nature. And you haven't answered my questions - what do you mean by "natural," in the context of this thread?

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush will more than likely be the last Republican president the U.S. ever has with the increase of black and hispanic voting that will sway the way to Democrat candidates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't assume that. In the fifties who would have thought the South would switch from democratic to republican.

[Low Key]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bush will more than likely be the last Republican president the U.S. ever has with the increase of black and hispanic voting that will sway the way to Democrat candidates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't assume that. In the fifties who would have thought the South would switch from democratic to republican.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me... when I build my time machine! Muahahaha!!

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bush will more than likely be the last Republican president the U.S. ever has with the increase of black and hispanic voting that will sway the way to Democrat candidates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't assume that. In the fifties who would have thought the South would switch from democratic to republican.

[/ QUOTE ]

Black vote? Eventually they'll wake up to the Dems using them, and see who's actually promoting Blacks into positions of prominence.

Hispanic vote? Unless you mean the illegal alien vote, the more "open borders" a candidate is the less chance he has with hispanics.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Black vote? Eventually they'll wake up to the Dems using them, and see who's actually promoting Blacks into positions of prominence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Typical arrogance. The 90+% of blacks who tend to vote for Democrat's are just too naive to pick the party that serves them best?

Perhaps its this arrogant and condescending attitude of you and your party towards minorities is what keeps them from voting with you?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Hispanic vote? Unless you mean the illegal alien vote, the more "open borders" a candidate is the less chance he has with hispanics.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the ultra-liberal National Review:

"A GOP Recipe for Electoral Disaster [Larry Kudlow]

In an exhaustively researched survey of 145 precincts and 175,000 votes, Richard Nadler of America’s Majority Foundation concludes that when Republicans talk about enforcement-only, deportation, and criminalization of illegal immigrants, they get slammed politically.

According to Mr. Nadler, “Policies that induce mass fear in illegal aliens induce mass anger in legal aliens because of ties of family culture and a shared media communication.”

Because of the predominant Republican party attitude of enforcement-only, the study indicates that Democrats will capture New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, and Iowa in the upcoming presidential contest.

Mr. Nadler goes on to say that Republicans who support comprehensive immigration reform run almost even with Democrats.

Any discussion of mass deportation or criminalization is a disaster."


Maybe this is just another case of Hispanic voters, like black voters, being just too darn stupid to realize the GOP truly [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]'s them.

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hispanic vote? Unless you mean the illegal alien vote, the more "open borders" a candidate is the less chance he has with hispanics.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the ultra-liberal National Review:

"A GOP Recipe for Electoral Disaster [Larry Kudlow]

In an exhaustively researched survey of 145 precincts and 175,000 votes, Richard Nadler of America’s Majority Foundation concludes that when Republicans talk about enforcement-only, deportation, and criminalization of illegal immigrants, they get slammed politically.

According to Mr. Nadler, “Policies that induce mass fear in illegal aliens induce mass anger in legal aliens because of ties of family culture and a shared media communication.”

Because of the predominant Republican party attitude of enforcement-only, the study indicates that Democrats will capture New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, and Iowa in the upcoming presidential contest.

Mr. Nadler goes on to say that Republicans who support comprehensive immigration reform run almost even with Democrats.

Any discussion of mass deportation or criminalization is a disaster."


Maybe this is just another case of Hispanic voters, like black voters, being just too darn stupid to realize the GOP truly [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]'s them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what happened to the Republicans in California with Prop whatever that was supported by then Rep. Gov Pete Wilson and alienated Hispanic voters. Karl Rove is not dumb, he saw the writing on the wall, you think he really gives a crap about immigration? His position is based on winning votes, and his position is the Bush, Kennedy position, not the current one that the Reps are running on. (personally, I have no position on the issue, I haven't looked into it, but I think I am conflicted between enforcement and being a nice pansy-ass liberal [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] )