I thought Bernie Sanders was considering a run. Independents usually end up splitting the vote, but maybe, just maybe Murkans are ready for a mad as hell firebrand like Sanders. I would love to see him in the OO with Warren as his Veep. 8 years later, Warren assumes the mantel with Corey Booker in the wings. Now that’s as close as we can get to a President Bartlett America.
Not likely to happen. Why would Warren run? Hillary Clinton has led in every poll put out in every combination of possible contenders-not by a little, but by a lot. She’s broken 60% in most polls, and I don’t ever remember that happening in an open election season. Warren, like Marco Rubio, should just stay put and get more traction.
Meanwhile, the Republicans have a difficult choice of several pro-life wackos. I can’t wait for the coming debates on who loves Israel more, who is less of a baby killer, who is least pro-sodomy, and the like. It will be months and months of competition for who is the most conservative, the modern definition of that being who is most living in a fantasy past that never existed. What a choice: Mike Huckabee and the Bubbas; Jeb Bush and executive orders keeping feeding tubes in the brain dead; Santorum’s santorum; the Palin-Trump ‘bat shit crazy’ show; Walkers insistence that women who are raped carry those babies to term; Rand Paul and Ted Cruz debate over who hates government more (despite wanting to work in it…) You want Warren-Clinton cuz it might be entertaining-I say look at the crazy you have going on your side of the political aisle and get some popcorn-it’s going to be entertaining! 
So why not Warren? Hillary without the baggage. Still got that new car smell. The stench of failure has not yet accrued. You don’t have to defend your record in debates if you haven’t got a record. The hero of Benghazi has a record that can’t be defended.
It’s not like the American public is too smart to be swayed by highfalutin’ rhetoric and vague, empty promises from someone with no real experience. That question was settled in 2008.
It’s a shame that the party that is supposed to represent the liberal half of America is likely to run a candidate who is firmly in the establishment centre right.
I’m no fan of HRC, but Benghazi will not hurt her. Just because reports of it bring up Fox news ratings doesn’t mean it will bring her down. If the eventual republican nominee blows the benghazi trumpet through the campaign, it will be a losing issue. Romney tried and failed miserably. Keep going, though- republicans seem to enjoy beating dead horses over winning the White House. I don’t like HRC but I hate the republican party and wouldn’t mind seeing another blowout.
I think Webb would make the race interesting. Could pose a real challenge to Hillary.
Jim Crow unavailable for comment at this time.
[quote=“rowland”][quote=“CNN”]
“The Democratic Party could do very well to return to its Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Andrew Jackson roots where the focus of the party was making sure that all people who lack a voice in the corridors of power could have one through the elected represented.”
[/quote]
Jim Crow unavailable for comment at this time.[/quote]
I wouldn’t tie explicit racism to those specific presidents. The legacy of Jackson is complex, but I would argue that Jacksonian democracy also impacted anti-slavery forces as well. Don’t forget that Andrew Jackson’s VP (Van Buren) partnered with John Quincy Adam’s son (a combination of old opposites: Federalist and Jacksonian Democrat) to found the Free Soil Party in 1848: Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Speech. Predated the birth of the anti-Slavery Republican Party by almost a decade.
Truman integrated the Armed Forces and FDR’s Executive Order 8802, which banned discrimination in federal hiring, was the most beneficial piece of legislation for African Americans (at the time) since Reconstruction. Certainly more progressive than anything Harding, Coolidge or Hoover did.
Furthermore, let’s not forget that the new Republican Party in 1856 was more than happy to integrate very racist “Know Nothing” party elements into their ranks. Whigs and Know Nothing supporters overwhelmingly supported the Repubs and Fremont in 1856 (first Republican party candidate ever). The Know Nothings were one of the most anti-Catholic and Nativist parties ever created. I see similar strains of that party’s type of intolerance in Rand/Ron Paul type of Republicans and Paleoconservatives (in stark contrast to cultured Republican realists or Ex-Democrat Republican neoconservatives). 
I would still prefer Repub Jeb over Dem Webb but think that Webb’s military background and popularity with blue collar Dems (would certainly help the Dems keep Virginia) would help him in a general election by swaying Reagan Democrats. No way he’d win the Dem primary process though. The Dem party activists (i.e. leftist teacher unions and stinky trial lawyer interest groups ) likely despise him for his pro-gun, straight-talking, and Scots-Irish anti-establishment personality.
A major theme running through the history of the Democratic party is exploiting race animosity for political gain. Once they did it openly, turning whites against blacks by supporting naked racism. More recently they’ve done it hypocritically, turning blacks against whites in the name of social justice. Webb seems to be moving back to the earlier tactic, but the strategy remains the same: divide and conquer.
And why shouldn’t they? It works. Identity politics is a sucker’s game, and there are plenty of suckers to be had.
Both parties are guilty of that at certain times. Republicans did it in 1968 with Nixon’s Southern Strategy. If certain Republicans were against exploiting race animosity for political gain, they would have overwhelmingly supported Nelson Rockefeller as a candidate that year (and America would have likely been better for it). Unfortunately, there was an almost Marxist-like class animosity against Rockefeller.
Really? Where did you dream that one up from?
Both parties are guilty of that at certain times. Republicans did it in 1968 with Nixon’s Southern Strategy. If certain Republicans were against exploiting race animosity for political gain, they would have overwhelmingly supported Nelson Rockefeller as a candidate that year (and America would have likely been better for it). Unfortunately, there was an almost Marxist-like class animosity against Rockefeller.[/quote]
Who are you and what have you done with chewdawg!?
This is like the fourth post I’ve seen from you in recent weeks that is well thought out and non-partisan. I agree, both parties have a history with racial politics and certainly neither should say the other is historically worse.
As for Jim Webb, he has already announced (kind of) and no one seems excited about it. I’m not either and can’t explain why; on paper he seems like the kind of candidate I would support.
[quote=“rowland”].
And why shouldn’t they? It works. Identity politics is a sucker’s game, and there are plenty of suckers to be had.[/quote]
Amazingly enough, “white male” is also an identity, even though many treat it as the default setting.
[quote=“MikeN”][quote=“rowland”].
And why shouldn’t they? It works. Identity politics is a sucker’s game, and there are plenty of suckers to be had.[/quote]
Amazingly enough, “white male” is also an identity, even though many treat it as the default setting.[/quote]
The days of the default setting are coming to an end. If we don’t transcend ethnicity, then we will be ruled by means of ethnicity. When – not if – whites are a minority, will they be a persecuted minority? A dominant minority? Or just another minority?
If people can just learn to be themselves, they will be immune to these mechanizations. Skin color will be no more remarkable than hair color. But most people can’t learn to be themselves. They need a comfy pigeonhole to slumber in, surrounded by their clones. They prefer to think of themselves in first person plural, not singular.
[quote=“rowland”][quote=“MikeN”][quote=“rowland”].
And why shouldn’t they? It works. Identity politics is a sucker’s game, and there are plenty of suckers to be had.[/quote]
Amazingly enough, “white male” is also an identity, even though many treat it as the default setting.[/quote]
The days of the default setting are coming to an end. If we don’t transcend ethnicity, then we will be ruled by means of ethnicity. When – not if – whites are a minority, will they be a persecuted minority? A dominant minority? Or just another minority?
[/quote]
As long as the colored people (ooops, people of color) don’t do as they have been done to…
[quote=“MikeN”][quote=“rowland”][quote=“MikeN”][quote=“rowland”].
As long as the colored people (ooops, people of color) don’t do as they have been done to…[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
You mean affirmative action?
[quote=“rowland”][quote=“MikeN”][quote=“rowland”][quote=“MikeN”][quote=“rowland”].
As long as the colored people (ooops, people of color) don’t do as they have been done to…[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
You mean affirmative action?[/quote]
After we go through the 200 years of slavery and century of segregation?
Those lucky colored folks, with their history of basking in the white man’s benevolence- no wonder they’re shiftless, we’ve just been spoiling them all along.
[quote=“MikeN”]
After we go through the 200 years of slavery and century of segregation?
Those lucky colored folks, with their history of basking in the white man’s benevolence- no wonder they’re shiftless, we’ve just been spoiling them all along.[/quote]
Wow. Living for 200 years. That’s something. I thought the world record was 122 years.
Since we’re at risk of veering off topic into the land of the social justice warriors, here’s a picture of a white oppressor:
She’s drunk with power, I tell you. That, and the blood of slaves.
She just hasn’t been right since that encounter with a sniper in Bosnia.
I had a feeling. It’ not that they never learn. It’s that they interpret the lesson as narrowly as possible:
washingtonexaminer.com/shock … le/2560098
Meet the new hope and change, same as the old hope and change. What difference does it make?