Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

If the Republicans are to rebuild their party, who could lead the party to fight Obama?

Bobby Jindal?
Mitt Romney?
Mike Huckabee?

Maybe not Palin...

I find it ironic that Palin gets more attention and credibility among the pollsters than Jindal... However, Palin is a staunch 2nd amendment rights defender, even as Jindal is a stalwart pro-life warrior.

What America needs is another party, not another weirdo to lead already existing, not greatly functioning parties.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What America needs is another party, not another weirdo to lead already existing, not greatly functioning parties.

Yup, a strong third party would force all of them to be at least slightly more honest and probably prevent them from pandering to extremes.

I like Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul (somewhat..mostly just his economic views).

To build any third party large enough to seriously threaten the established two parties in both Congress and the Office of the President would require the majority of states revising their ballot access laws, which, in a majority of cases, were signed into law as such in order to prevent the rise of third parties. New England is the region most ready to support third parties (Vermont and Maine most notably, with New York State having two state MPs from third parties)

That would (finally!) force the established parties to make their policies better defined should that gambit succeed. With two parties, policy making is watered down to a point where it doesn't matter to the voting public anymore.

There are two or three viable contenders for 2012, as far as I see it:

The Green Party (with Nader as its Presidential nominee)
The Libertarian Party
The Reform Party (with Ventura as its Presidential nominee)

Jesse Ventura is credited as being the last third-party governor (Minnesota) from recent history. He was officially victorious as an Independent but he was technically a Reformist.

I know that the public is usually more willing to go vote in multi-party nations than in two-party nations.
---------------------------------
As far as Jindal is concerned, pollsters (even the ultra-conservative Fox News) do not give him more than 9% in Republican primary polls.

On the other hand, Palin is given victory in two polls pertaining to Republican primaries and Republican nomination for a couple of polls pertaining to the general election. Never Jindal was considered by pollsters outside of Louisiana.

However, if you're speaking of Louisiana... either Palin or Jindal would win the state; we do not know about Huckabee or Romney. Jindal could, at best (if there is no radical change among Republicans) be the running mate of either Romney, Huckabee or Palin.

Third Party. Preferably social democrats to counter the corporatist democrats. Considering their current tactics, there are only four people to lead the Republican Party, J.P. Morgan, Ion Antonescu, Benito Mussolini, and George Lincoln Rockwell. Too bad for the Republicans they're all dead. Maybe Sylvestre Matuschka but he disappeared after escaping from prison and was never found...

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Third Party. Preferably social democrats to counter the corporatist democrats. Considering their current tactics, there are only four people to lead the Republican Party, J.P. Morgan, Ion Antonescu, Benito Mussolini, and George Lincoln Rockwell. Too bad for the Republicans they're all dead. Maybe Sylvestre Matuschka but he disappeared after escaping from prison and was never found... Man, that post of yours was a train wreck from the start of it.

I'm gonna say Romney or Jindal. Romney because of his obvious expertise in the economy which is going to be a big issue for some time. He also doesn't reek of extremism and comes off as a smart guy, and not one of those 'back home' type republicans that people like because they can relate to, like Palin or Bush.

Jindal is more or less the Repubs. version of Obama. Young, charismatic, great speaker, strong voice. Smart. I'd love to see a Jindal vs Obama debate in 2012, it would be fascinating.

Originally posted by FE Expert
To build any third party large enough to seriously threaten the established two parties in both Congress and the Office of the President would require the majority of states revising their ballot access laws, which, in a majority of cases, were signed into law as such in order to prevent the rise of third parties. New England is the region most ready to support third parties (Vermont and Maine most notably, with New York State having two state MPs from third parties)

That would (finally!) force the established parties to make their policies better defined should that gambit succeed. With two parties, policy making is watered down to a point where it doesn't matter to the voting public anymore.

There are two or three viable contenders for 2012, as far as I see it:

The Green Party (with Nader as its Presidential nominee)
The Libertarian Party
The Reform Party (with Ventura as its Presidential nominee)

Jesse Ventura is credited as being the last third-party governor (Minnesota) from recent history. He was officially victorious as an Independent but he was technically a Reformist.

I know that the public is usually more willing to go vote in multi-party nations than in two-party nations.
---------------------------------
As far as Jindal is concerned, pollsters (even the ultra-conservative Fox News) do not give him more than 9% in Republican primary polls.

On the other hand, Palin is given victory in two polls pertaining to Republican primaries and Republican nomination for a couple of polls pertaining to the general election. Never Jindal was considered by pollsters outside of Louisiana.

However, if you're speaking of Louisiana... either Palin or Jindal would win the state; we do not know about Huckabee or Romney. Jindal could, at best (if there is no radical change among Republicans) be the running mate of either Romney, Huckabee or Palin.

This type of restriction of number of parties does not seem too democratic. While having too many is just dangerous, having more than two would seem fair.

Perhaps an answer may be if the more right wing Democrats and more left wing Republicans branching off to make a whole new party. Remocartic Depublicans.

But in all seriousness, that may actually provide a lot better results in terms of policies. (with a normal party name, of course)

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
This type of restriction of number of parties does not seem too democratic. While having too many is just dangerous, having more than two would seem fair.

Perhaps an answer may be if the more right wing Democrats and more left wing Republicans branching off to make a whole new party. Remocartic Depublicans.

But in all seriousness, that may actually provide a lot better results in terms of policies. (with a normal party name, of course) I'm founding the National Federalist Party. Who's with me? Anybody? Anyone whatsoever?

I would love to see a third party gain some power in this country. I really, really hope that Palin doesn't run again. It would absolutely blow my mind and I would vote for Obama in a second if that is who the Republicans decide to throw into the ring.

The only way for a third party to gain ground is to set aside their ideals a bit. The ones that exist aren't jaded enough, they need soften their stances on things and pander a bit more to the middle. A Libertarian-esque party that takes a stand a little closer to the Dems and Reps could probably drum up support. Social Democrats probably won't make it until Europe turns into a Utopia.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The only way for a third party to gain ground is to set aside their ideals a bit. The ones that exist aren't jaded enough, they need soften their stances on things and pander a bit more to the middle. A Libertarian-esque party that takes a stand a little closer to the Dems and Reps could probably drum up support. Social Democrats probably won't make it until Europe turns into a Utopia.

Yeah, and that will never happen. In fact forming of EUSSR has been the biggest crock of shit so far.
It has turned into some kind of a dictatorship with a hope to make United States of Europe or something...

Federalist Party as in the Federalist Society? The people that want to turn America into Mexico by loosening check and balances on the presidency and making the other two branches subservient to the executive? That's moronic.

I honestly am starting to think that it would be best to heed George Washington's advice and just ban all political parties.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I honestly am starting to think that it would be best to heed George Washington's advice and just ban all political parties.

Maybe an idea....actually.

In fact, ban all corporate sponsorship for political parties, ban politicians from owning huge stakes at massive corporations, may also be a start.

no one because i think Obama will do enough to warrant a second term

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Federalist Party as in the Federalist Society? The people that want to turn America into Mexico by loosening check and balances on the presidency and making the other two branches subservient to the executive? That's moronic.

That's not accurate at all.

From what I know about the modern federalists, they're mainly against the US constitution applying to states and for the concept of the imperial presidency. The historic Federalist Party was for a strong national government with executive supremacy and democracy being only a pageant due to mistrust of the masses.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
From what I know about the modern federalists, they're mainly against the US constitution applying to states and for the concept of the imperial presidency. The historic Federalist Party was for a strong national government with executive supremacy and democracy being only a pageant due to mistrust of the masses. That's not what I mean, but the Federalist Society is a bunch of quacks, so I agree with you there. As for what you said, however, unless I'm reading it wrong, then nah, that's only the radical portions of Federalists. Neo-Federalists or Reagan-Federalists want to enhance the separation of powers due to the Presidency becoming too powerful and also return (mostly economic) power to the states. They have zero interest in making the other two branches subservient, though the Federalist Society does hate the Liberal courts. Ironically, or rather paradoxically, Neo-Federalists are almost the opposite of what Hamilton wanted his Federalists to be.

Back to why I said "that's inaccurate," what I meant by National Federalist was actually Nationalism and Hamiltonian-Federalism, two things that can't necessarily go together. It was a play on the fact that what America needs is a "middle ground" party, so to speak.

Originally posted by BackFire
I'm gonna say Romney or Jindal. Romney because of his obvious expertise in the economy which is going to be a big issue for some time. He also doesn't reek of extremism and comes off as a smart guy, and not one of those 'back home' type republicans that people like because they can relate to, like Palin or Bush.

Jindal is more or less the Repubs. version of Obama. Young, charismatic, great speaker, strong voice. Smart. I'd love to see a Jindal vs Obama debate in 2012, it would be fascinating.

There are two outcomes that I believe more likely than Jindal being the Republican nominee:

1. Jindal becomes the running mate of the winner. In this case it would be a Jindal vs. Biden debate.

2. Should the Republican camp win, Jindal would accept a Cabinet position.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
From what I know about the modern federalists, they're mainly against the US constitution applying to states and for the concept of the imperial presidency. The historic Federalist Party was for a strong national government with executive supremacy and democracy being only a pageant due to mistrust of the masses.

weird

Federalism in the Canadian context is power being distributed from the executive to lower forms of government, specifically in the case of Quebec, which we call asymmetrical federalism.

I've talked about radical federalism before, which to me (and afaik I invented the term), is that to the extreme, where more central forms of government go to work dismantling any apparatus which could be more appropriately governed in smaller communities.

The idea being to apply power more bottom up than top down.

Probably the difference between small "f" and capital "F" federalists, eh?

Probably Mitt Romney.

Good candidate (religious faith, economy), but easy for the media to rip him apart (religious faith, economy).

Obama is gonna win a second term, just like Bush, Clinton and Reagan. Though, the next election will be closer I think. 290/240 kinda scale.

As for Jindal, don't know much about him, but getting another youth does seem the custom in British politics, so it's possible.

Originally posted by KidRock
I would love to see a third party gain some power in this country. I really, really hope that Palin doesn't run again. It would absolutely blow my mind and I would vote for Obama in a second if that is who the Republicans decide to throw into the ring.

Yeah, I really don't see Palin running. I think she's gone for good.

I forgot the name but I remember him slamming the stimulus package booklet in congress....yeah, that guy is pretty good.

Huckabee any good? Romney is some good on economical issues; Jindal is more socially conservative than Romney (or, at least, that's how I see it)

If Palin fails, would she accept a Cabinet position (say, Secretary of Energy) in the event of a Republican victory?

Ron Paul and Jim DeMint both were prominent opponents of the stimulus package.

Originally posted by FE Expert
Huckabee any good? Romney is some good on economical issues; Jindal is more socially conservative than Romney (or, at least, that's how I see it)

If Palin fails, would she accept a Cabinet position (say, Secretary of Energy) in the event of a Republican victory?

Ron Paul and Jim DeMint both were prominent opponents of the stimulus package.

They'll never pick Paul (social liberal/crazy person) or Palin (political suicide).

Palin gets press and radicalizes a certain base, but that can be said to have had at least as strong of a negative effect on the Republican campaign as it was positive, and there were leaks by the end that the McCain people were totally fed up with he incompetence (coincidentally, her people said she was not given enough air time).

I don't think the GOP is stupid. They saw that their violent base wont win elections, and you could probably run a fern (as long as it was white) as a Republican candidate and still have their support.

American politics really is pandering to those middle voters.

Originally posted by FE Expert
Huckabee any good?

NO! Not Huckabee (not a bad choice) this guy:

CvnwOjDjnH4&feature=channel

He reminds me of Daniel Hannan...he kicks ass too. Maybe the Republicans should bring Daniel here.

Everyone salute John Boner!!! The stiffest dick in congress!

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Everyone salute John Boner!!! The stiffest dick in congress!




I would change my name.


I go to church with a guy named Harry Butz. I would have changed my name long ago.

I've known a couple of Harry Hymen's in Hebrew school. One of them was a guy's name.

I am really saddened by the shape of the Republican party. I think before ANYONE leads the republicans to the next election, reform within the party needs to be made. It's ridiculous how the current state of Republicanism is barely what it originally resembled. The GOP seems to be filled with a bunch of babbling fools ATM. I think the Republicans need an entirely new person who isn't afraid to show some guts with some sort of reformed, more centrist leaning Libertarianism that could really help America out.

Originally posted by Kram3r
I am really saddened by the shape of the Republican party. I think before ANYONE leads the republicans to the next election, reform within the party needs to be made. It's ridiculous how the current state of Republicanism is barely what it originally resembled. The GOP seems to be filled with a bunch of babbling fools ATM. I think the Republicans need an entirely new person who isn't afraid to show some guts with some sort of reformed, more centrist leaning Libertarianism that could really help America out.

What kind of people that would be? DeMint? Boehner? Jindal? Certainly not Paul or Palin.

again, with the current slant of the party it would be someone like David Duke, Pete Peters, Steve Forbes, or Grover Norquist. The Teabagger brownshirts and the appointment of a weak, pathetic puppet like Michael Steele is just proof to me that the party is moving more and more to the extreme right wing. I'm honestly scared of how similar the current situation is to the Weimar Republic, they just haven't picked a leader to unify around now that they're staging street fights and antireform hysteria.

Originally posted by FE Expert
What kind of people that would be? DeMint? Boehner? Jindal? Certainly not Paul or Palin.

None of those people. I do like Ron Paul, to be honest, but not even him, although he has the closest mindset. All those people aren't operating in the present (or future) America. Besides Ron Paul, all of these "Republicans" (I use the term loosely to describe these people) are just politicans who are pampering their core political base with no real sense in what's good for the country overall.

I'd see several people more as potential running mates or as cabinet ministers (in the event of a Republican victory) than nomination contenders:

As both (potential cabinet post in brackets):

- Bobby Jindal (Secretary of Homeland Security)
- Ron Paul (Surgeon General)
- Jim DeMint (Secretary of Treasury)
- Charlie Crist (Attorney General)

As only potential Cabinet ministers:

- Sarah Palin (Secretary of Energy)

Originally posted by FE Expert
I'd see several people more as potential running mates or as cabinet ministers (in the event of a Republican victory) than nomination contenders:

As both (potential cabinet post in brackets):

- Bobby Jindal (Secretary of Homeland Security)
- Ron Paul (Surgeon General)
- Jim DeMint (Secretary of Treasury)
- Charlie Crist (Attorney General)

As only potential Cabinet ministers:

- Sarah Palin (Secretary of Energy)

With that list, all I see is the continuation of the last eight years. I think a true candiate for the GOP won't emerge until the next election. Even then, I'm doubtful he'll be a succesful contender or if even a great Republican.

The brass of the GOP will likely not be giving Paul any cabinet positions.

Especially after the last election, you know, where he threw his own mock convention critiscizing the major brass of the GOP

Originally posted by inimalist
The brass of the GOP will likely not be giving Paul any cabinet positions.

Especially after the last election, you know, where he threw his own mock convention critiscizing the major brass of the GOP

Agreed. It is a joke though, honestly. I was really hoping Obama getting elected would teach the GOP a lesson. Doesn't look like it did too much at all.

Originally posted by Kram3r
I am really saddened by the shape of the Republican party. I think before ANYONE leads the republicans to the next election, reform within the party needs to be made. It's ridiculous how the current state of Republicanism is barely what it originally resembled. The GOP seems to be filled with a bunch of babbling fools ATM. I think the Republicans need an entirely new person who isn't afraid to show some guts with some sort of reformed, more centrist leaning Libertarianism that could really help America out. Honestly, they'll probably be more radical and claim Obama is soft on terror.

It worked in the 90s.

Well, first Clinton was too tough then he was too soft.

Originally posted by FE Expert
If the Republicans are to rebuild their party, who could lead the party to fight Obama?

Bobby Jindal?
Mitt Romney?
Mike Huckabee?

Maybe not Palin...

I find it ironic that Palin gets more attention and credibility among the pollsters than Jindal... However, Palin is a staunch 2nd amendment rights defender, even as Jindal is a stalwart pro-life warrior.

The Mormons

Maybe if the reanimated Teddy Roosevelt or Abe Lincoln, assuming they wouldn't become socialists or kill themselves once they saw the state of their party...

I know DeMint reeks of extremism, but Romney or Giuliani are more moderate. But would Jindal reek of extremism like DeMint?

I don't think any of the currently spotlighted republicans can do it. It will probably be someone who hasn't gotten much attention... it could even be someone who wins in 2010 midterms. None of the current batch really seem like much of a match for Obama.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Honestly, they'll probably be more radical and claim Obama is soft on terror.

It worked in the 90s.

It won't work any more. Bush was a bigger distaster than Nixon. The entire party needs a reform.

The real problem is that the republicans are too far in the Right Wing right now to be able to gain a majority.

The party must get ride of all Jesus Lovers, extremists, Glenn Beck, and all the idiots who are Deathers and/or Birthers and then, they might have a chance.

Obama is iconic in is way of being just a man who can make mistakes and apologize after done it and would probably whoop any ass if they was election tomorrow.

Btw, great job by electing him, the World thanks you.

The world thanks us? As in the One World Government?

Ahhhh!

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
The real problem is that the republicans are too far in the Right Wing right now to be able to gain a majority.

The party must get ride of all Jesus Lovers, extremists, Glenn Beck, and all the idiots who are Deathers and/or Birthers and then, they might have a chance.

We've already came to that conclusion.

I think a real problem the republicans have is they've lately accrued themselves the reputation of being obstructionist when lately both sides have been calling for bipartisanship. For instance on health care reform they've made fools of themselves by refusing to actually take the debate to town halls instead of just making noise outside of the actual debate.

Originally posted by Kram3r
We've already came to that conclusion.

Just wanted to repeat it,.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think a real problem the republicans have is they've lately accrued themselves the reputation of being obstructionist when lately both sides have been calling for bipartisanship. For instance on health care reform they've made fools of themselves by refusing to actually take the debate to town halls instead of just making noise outside of the actual debate.

I would agree with that.

America will finally be equal when we get a Native american on the presidential podium .

No, first we would have to get a Scandinavian. And a chinese. And a singaporean. And a korean. And a mexican. And a guatamalen. And a jamaican. And an indian. And a japanese. And a norwegian. And a cambodian. And an australian aboriginee.

And if you add religion into the picture, it's just as dismill. Nothing but christians and (early on) deists.

Originally posted by Morgromir
America will finally be equal when we get a Native american on the presidential podium .

I wonder if the kids in Chicago think they are equal now that there is a black man as President

Some problems with the candidates already mentioned-

Guliani: Grossly unpopular with public servants. Police corruption charges. The fact that he spent up to $750,000 of 9/11 relief funds on his mistress and used a construction office at ground zero as a love nest.

Gingrich: Forgetting the whole wife stuff. He was charged with more ethics violations and fined more money than anyone in the history of the House of Representatives.

Romney: Put simply, even more so than Bill Clinton, Mitt Romney is the king of layoffs and job outsourcing.

Huckabey: He's got cushy Fox News job and his creepy connections to the Dominionist movement make a lot of people uncomfortable, especially since he doesn't keep it on the DL.

Paul: He is too closely associated with the GOA which itself is waaaay too comfortable with white supremacists. That and he seems to attract a lot of conspiracy theory survivalist extremist types that make people uncomfortable.

Santorum: Gee, where do we start? He defrauded tax payers out of money that he used for personal and family expenses, he hates gays and wants to push christian values down everyone's throat cause he doesn't think there is an inherent right to privacy. He slept with his stillborn child. Oh, and there's the fact that his name is a sexual slang term. You may as well elect representative Pearl Necklace.

Foxx: She is one of the death panel crazies. She voted against Katrina relief of any kind. She started a retirement account program that screwed soldiers and veterans out of their life savings as soon as the economy tanked. Oh, and she called Matthew Shepherd's murder a fraud to his mother's face on the House floor.

Bachmann: She is bat shit insane. She called for investigation and blacklisting of liberals and other unamericans. She is associated with the dominionist movement. She keeps quoting noted supporters of Hitler in order to make points (in a positive way). She called AmeriCorps a brainwashing paramilitary organization (despite her son joining a crew). She has spread myths and rumors about the current administration such as the conspiracy theory regarding the 2010 census and conservatives being shipped off to concentration camps despite the fact that REX 84 is an Oliver North contingency plan that no one other than a right wing loony would execute in its present state. She said that God willed her to be president. And she has been cited for inciting violence against the government and president of the United States.

Palin: She keeps posting insane shit and personal attacks on her facebook page. She has never completed a complete term in any office. She is involved in spreading false myths and rumors. She gave a resignation speech while obviously on something. And of course, she resigned as governor of Alaska to pursue a lucrative reality show contract for her and her family that was a tentative offer at best and was never finalized.

I almost forgot, John McCain:

He's already tried several times and lost. He changes his position on the issues based on poll numbers and his donors (like the way he kissed up to the religious right after calling them hate mongers three year earlier). Oh, and the big factor that lost him the election in the west-he favors amending water rights to favor Arizona.
Weld County in Colorado, infamous for electing Marilyn Musgrave and for having a large white supremacist base voted for Obama because McCain said in a speech that he would amend water rights in Colorado so that Arizona would receive more water from the South Platte and Colorado rivers (at the expense of Colorado farmers of course) stupid, stupid move.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, first we would have to get a Scandinavian. And a Chinese. And a singaporean. And a korean. And a mexican. And a guatamalen. And a jamaican. And an indian. And a japanese. And a norwegian. And a cambodian. And an australian aboriginee.

And if you add religion into the picture, it's just as dismill. Nothing but christians and (early on) deists.
Do we owe anything to the Chinese, and Koreans ? we STOLE native land it was give or die , they lost their land or their life we've had white presidents so far currently a black president leads us ,so your right to be completely equal as proof, we need an oriental , and Scandinavian on top of of a native .
for the basis though a native would be good to have lead our country cause the natives went through alot because of outsiders with little or nothing in return.

Originally posted by Morgromir
Do we owe anything to the Chinese, and Koreans ? we STOLE native land it was give or die , they lost their land or their life we've had white presidents so far currently a black president leads us ,so your right to be completely equal as proof, we need an oriental , and Scandinavian on top of of a native .
for the basis though a native would be good to have lead our country cause the natives went through alot because of outsiders with little or nothing in return.

ummm

what has Obama done for the African American community since taking office?

What inner-city poverty initiatives has he started, how is he targeting lack of infrastructure and jobs, fatherless homes, etc? What about prison reform?

Having a person of a particular race as leader is meaningless. Obama is certainly not evidence that blacks are equal in America.

Also, from the Canadian experience, it turns out that Natives are more often screwed over by the greed and power struggles of their own leaders, who are often too willing to buy into the government. It is unlikely that a Native politician who wanted any major change for native people would get through the parties major vetting processes, especially with the "whites stole our land" rhetoric. LOL, look at how Obama had to distance himself from Rev. Wright.

Bush 1&2 really screwed up, presidents have been screwing up since the WW's after them our economy crashed(every ones did) , and only remained a superpower because of our armed forces. Obama has alot on his plate , republicans wouldn't be complaining if McCain was elected and did the same thing ,its a deep racist resentment , republicans are just pissed because they lost the election .

true, but why do you think minority leaders in major political offices will make the problems for those minorities better?

Civil rights have almost always been grass roots, and against such political institutions

I think a real sign of equality in the US would be to get an atheist or muslim into office, given the job the christian right has done at completely smearing both of them.

Originally posted by inimalist
true, but why do you think minority leaders in major political offices will make the problems for those minorities better?

Minorities in high offices won't necessarily do anything. What they are is proof that attitudes are changing towards acceptance of differences (which many some a few people in America think is a good sign).

Originally posted by FE Expert
If the Republicans are to rebuild their party, who could lead the party to fight Obama?




What, you mean like a street fight?

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think a real sign of equality in the US would be to get an atheist or muslim into office, given the job the christian right has done at completely smearing both of them.

No thanks.

I think we already saw the devastating effect it has on the country when you elect someone based on color or religion and not on skills and experience.

lol. I said a sign of equality, not a good president.

but it isn't a sign of equality. I'll admit that Sym is right, and the election of a Black man shows that there is more general acceptance of equality in society versus, say, 1952, but, black people are no more equal now than they were when Bush was president.

Originally posted by inimalist
but it isn't a sign of equality. I'll admit that Sym is right, and the election of a Black man shows that there is more general acceptance of equality in society versus, say, 1952, but, black people are no more equal now than they were when Bush was president.

As long as that person doesn't represent any real change and who's skin color or heritage can be used as a basis for novelty at best and attacks at worst with said president being too much of a weak willed pussy to do anything about it.

true, but a person of any race could do that. Gender too.



























maybe even a gay

lol, no, I totally hear you. People saw the most physical embodiment of change and just assumed it was the change they wanted. It was sad, there were even more radical Democratic candidates who would have better represented those ideas, but they couldn't compete with the minority factor.

It's also why the Republicans cloned Don King, shaved him, and called him Michael Steele.

Alberto Gonzales

I prefer the Mario Solis Marich name for him- Bandito Gonzales.

hahaha!

Obama is having a very hard time, so much pressure on him. I feel sad about him to be american presistent in this hard period.

Is anyone else laughing about Bachmann and Santorum wanting to throw their hats in for 2012?

Bachmann is the looniest person ever... at first I thought nothing could top the americorp thing, but even worse is her insistence that since CO2 is "natural", it could not cause global warming... maybe she'd like to drink some hemlock or something then tell us that natural things can't be dangerous.

Santorum is pretty awful as well. Though his anti-gay statements are well-known, somehow I find his support of nationwide intelligent design education to be even more disturbing.

Bachmann's son is a corpsmember.

And you don't find his dead foetus spooning or corruption distrubing or the whole sex definition thing?

I don't know the dead fetus thing, sex definition isn't really anything about the man himself, like I said there are many things he could be mocked over, but I hate ID pushers w/ a passion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_(sexual_neologism)

makes me kind of hope he wins actually...

*shudder*

Wouldn't that make him easier to defeat? Like, show that he is willing to ignore... damn. This is America.

*slinks off to cry*