Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 10 May 2011, 11:29 am

As far as I'm aware, the only person to say that they are officially declaring is Newt Gingrich, and that was in the news today. Other than that, any other Republican who's buzzing around is still a maybe and by that chalk isn't 'serious'. They are looking to see if they have the support to declare, and perhaps assessing the financial situation, but that's it.

Gingrich was hardly unequivocal about the birther issue and other aspects of Obama's heritage before the full certificate was released.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 May 2011, 1:04 pm

Many in the Republican Party are desperately hoping that Indiana governor Mitch Daniels will swoop in and save them from a field of fatally flawed or un-serious presidential candidates. And according to the Huffington Post, Daniels would like to. There's just one thing standing in his way at this point: How he and his wife are going to handle their weird marriage history. "In 1993, Cheri Daniels left her husband with their four daughters and married another man in California. She returned a few years later, reconciled with Daniels, and the two were remarried in 1997." Cheri has never spoken about why that happened, and she probably doesn't want to.

source: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/05/mi ... riage.html

(italics above a shout out to Arch Duke)

Hmm. What is it about potential republican nominess and their marital history? I personnally don't know why this should exclude Daniels but perhaps he wants to save his wife and family the over zealous scrutiny that might follow should he announce?
In August 2010 Daniels said he would not run for president. SInce then he's polled never more than 6 points in any Republican preference polling.. Huckabee may not be "serious" to you Archduke but he's leading in most republican preference polls...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 10 May 2011, 1:19 pm

Right now it's simple name recognition, At this time 4 years ago Obama was hardly mentioned himself. Bill Clinton at this point before his run was a nobody as well.
The polls mean almost nothing at this point and reading into them this early is a bit foolish. Trump, Palin, Gingrich are all names people know and will almost naturally poll fairly high. Wait for a real election campaign and a few more widely seen debates, wait for the early odds from Iowa and New Hampshire, then you have something, right now is meaningless, or darned near meaningless (someone with zero recognition is probably not going to do well, that's about all the polls will tell you now)
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 10 May 2011, 1:23 pm

Well, I believe Daniels' August 2010 comment was he wouldn't run if Barbour ran because they are really good friends. I think the marriage issue is more about opening his wife to the kind of scrutiny a Presidential campaign causes.

I don't care about Huckabee's polling numbers. He isn't going to run. That is the bottom line. How can a person be a serious candidate if he isn't going to run.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 10 May 2011, 1:27 pm

Hmm. What is it about potential republican nominess and their marital history?

Yeah, nice try Ricky
Republicans have a lock on marital problems?
How about the Clinton's? Elliott Spitzer? Jesse Jackson Jr. ? it goes on and on with both sides of the aisle. Or do Democrats get some sort of special bye where they are excluded from such nonsense? And this wife of his, she left him, she left him with the kids, she came back and he accepted her, he sounds like a stand-up guy to me.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 11 May 2011, 6:29 am

Most of the news is being made by this Poll.
They poll only "Usual republican primary voters".
Have a look. Startling numbers?
- 34% of respondents STILL do not believe that President Obama was born in the US. (And the world is flat, and 6,000 years old.)
- Trumps support has plummetted from 34% to 8%.
- Tim Pawlenty, a serious candidate Archduke?, lags the Donald by 3 points. And thats after a lot of campaigning....and participation in the GOP debate.

archduke
How can a person be a serious candidate if he isn't going to run.

What deadlines have past for declaration that would exclude anyone from consideration yet? You might well be right, but if the Huck continues to poll as #1 or #2 don't you think he might change his mind?
And i agree that Daniels is probably concerned about the affect of a national campaign on his wife's and families' well being. He seeems like a decent man.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 11 May 2011, 7:15 am

rickyp wrote:- 34% of respondents STILL do not believe that President Obama was born in the US.

and something like 36% of Democrats think Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened.

rickyp wrote: Tim Pawlenty, a serious candidate Archduke?, lags the Donald by 3 points. And thats after a lot of campaigning....and participation in the GOP debate.

When nobody but political junkies like you and I are paying attention. Wait until July and August when the field starts to actually finalize.

rickyp wrote:You might well be right, but if the Huck continues to poll as #1 or #2 don't you think he might change his mind?


No I do not. He's making too much money and having too much fun doing what he is doing now. Further, he has almost not chance of winning the General Election let alone the primary and he knows it. It is the same reason why Sarah Palin isn't going to run.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 11 May 2011, 10:06 am

OK, nice try Ricky
Let's look at the Democrats polling numbers at this same time before the last election shall we?
The party not in power, a bit more than a year out from the next election.
This poll was taken in June 8th of 2006, pretty darned close.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/23245/clinto ... polls.aspx

In order:
Clinton, Gore, Edwards, Kerry, Clark, Biden, Feingold, Warner, Daschle, Vilsack, other
Obama is not even mentioned! Several never even ran

Shows you what the polls mean, your "startling" numbers are not so "startling" after all? Not when you compare what they mean in a historical context now do they?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 11 May 2011, 10:54 am

Is it still the case that the only declared candidate is Gingrich? And that he was 'just asking' about the birther issue for months?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 11 May 2011, 11:06 am

danivon wrote:Is it still the case that the only declared candidate is Gingrich? And that he was 'just asking' about the birther issue for months?


Gary Johnson is formally declared as well as a host of other no-names, i.e. Jimmy McMillian of "Rent is too Damned High" in the recent NY Governors race.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 11 May 2011, 12:51 pm

hahaha, Jimmy is running?
I live in New York Sate and saw the Governor's debate where he was included, how absolutely funny that guy was (too bad it was not intended comedy) the rent isn't too high, it's too DAMNED high!
What a clown the guy is, good for some laughs to be sure!
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 11 May 2011, 12:57 pm

I think we went over this before, Slavery was indeed AN issue, (a real big issue mind you) but certainly not the ONLY issue having to do with the Souths secession. Yeah, that's what kids are taught in school, the many other issues that were part of the reasons are now glossed over if covered at all making it look as though the civil war was ONLY about slavery, that is flat out wrong (as is Ruffhaus's statement a bit off as well as he seems to be trying to ignore the slavery issues, but it was not the only issue, he's right on that count).
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 11 May 2011, 3:26 pm

ruffhaus
I’m not arguing that. I’m saying that the notion that blacks were slaves solely because they were black is not the case


There were a handful of free Blacks in the South so slavery wasn't racist?
You know that the race of slaves was specififed in the Confederate Constitution right?

sec 3.3 In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress

sec 8.1 (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 11 May 2011, 3:35 pm

ruffhaus
If the war was fought to end slavery, why were they returning runaway slaves to their owners?


I don't think anyone has argued this. The war was fought to preserve the union.
The end of slavery came about because the conditions existed that allowed Lincoln to make the proclamation effective.
And that was a result of the Union winning.

Why is it Ruff that if slavery wasn't the primary reason for seceding. (The protection of the institution of black slavery that ius...) that the declarations of most of the states specified that it was indeed the primary reason?

Mississippi Declaration of Secession:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.

Opening paragraph, Georgia Declaration of Secession:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

From the Texas Declaration of Secession:

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union...She was received into the confederacy...as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

In all the non-slave-holding States...the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party...based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States...all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations...

From the South Carolina Declaration of Secession:

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 11 May 2011, 6:16 pm

Ricky,

Let us not forget the Cornerstone Speech from Vice President of the Confederacy Alexander Stephens.
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.


This comment from Randy
Slavery has nothing to do with racism.
made me laugh my ass off. Let's look to Alexander Stephens words again.
Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.
How one can not argue this is not racism is beyond me.

Of course, I have pointed these passages out to Randy numerous times. However, because they do not fit in with the narrative of noble South, he has never responded to them.