Leaving the community

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:k_bid.351511$MQ5.252777@attbi_s52...
These people are mad Kerry didn't run a liberal campaign and can't stand
that he "was just as pro-war as Bush."

The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run
for president again.

Hillary Clinton.

With Barack Obama for VP, of course. Too soon for him to run for Prez. but
he's going to get there sooner or later unless he has an intern problem.

2008 will be a slugfest extraordinaire. First in 50 years that you'll have a
completely open race with neither an incumbent nor VP on either ticket.

My dream team is Giuliani-Rice. Not likely to happen but the Red Sox weren't
supposed to beat the Yankees after being down 0-3 either. That team could
put nearly the entire country in play.

-cwk.

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:k_bid.351511$MQ5.252777@attbi_s52...
....snip...
The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run
for president again.

Hillary Clinton.

....snip...
My dream team is Giuliani-Rice. ...snip...

It would be interesting to see if the (conservative) country is ready for a
Woman in the White House, or even in the position of "heartbeat away".

That's kind of a "liberal" concept, isn't it???...

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:44:52 -0500, "Icebound"
wrote:


"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:k_bid.351511$MQ5.252777@attbi_s52...
...snip...
The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run
for president again.

Hillary Clinton.

...snip...
My dream team is Giuliani-Rice. ...snip...

It would be interesting to see if the (conservative) country is ready for a
Woman in the White House, or even in the position of "heartbeat away".

That's kind of a "liberal" concept, isn't it???...


This is a sad comment to make in the greatest country in the world,
but my sense is that any party that nominates a woman for president or
vice-president has conceded the election before it starts. For
reasons that I cannot fathom, this country is not even close to being
ready for that scenario. We'll accept female governors, supreme court
justices, CEO's, etc, but not president or vp. We are way behind the
rest of the world in that regard.

Rich Russell

This is a sad comment to make in the greatest country in the world,
but my sense is that any party that nominates a woman for president or
vice-president has conceded the election before it starts.

I disagree. I think America is MORE than ready to elect a conservative
Republican woman president/vice-president.

But Hillary? Never. She polarizes everyone she meets -- there is no middle
ground with her, in large part due to her husband's "legacy."

It's kind of a shame, cuz she's a bright woman in many ways.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:13:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

This is a sad comment to make in the greatest country in the world,
but my sense is that any party that nominates a woman for president or
vice-president has conceded the election before it starts.

I disagree. I think America is MORE than ready to elect a conservative
Republican woman president/vice-president.

But Hillary? Never. She polarizes everyone she meets -- there is no middle
ground with her, in large part due to her husband's "legacy."

It's kind of a shame, cuz she's a bright woman in many ways.

Well, Jay, I half agree with you. I do not agree that America is
ready to elect a woman president/vp but I absolutely agree that *when*
it finally does happen, it will be a conservative Republican. I also
agree that Hillary is a very intelligent woman who is patently
unelectable (at least in the context of the offices that we're talking
about).

Just so there is no confusion on my position: when I say the country
is not ready, I am not espousing that as my personal position. I
don't have any problem with a woman president.
Rich Russell

Personally, I would want a woman with a distinguished military combat
arms command or intel experience. A woman with either of those
backgrounds would eliminate most arguements.

Richard Russell wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:13:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:


This is a sad comment to make in the greatest country in the world,
but my sense is that any party that nominates a woman for president or
vice-president has conceded the election before it starts.

I disagree. I think America is MORE than ready to elect a conservative
Republican woman president/vice-president.

But Hillary? Never. She polarizes everyone she meets -- there is no middle
ground with her, in large part due to her husband's "legacy."

It's kind of a shame, cuz she's a bright woman in many ways.


Well, Jay, I half agree with you. I do not agree that America is
ready to elect a woman president/vp but I absolutely agree that *when*
it finally does happen, it will be a conservative Republican. I also
agree that Hillary is a very intelligent woman who is patently
unelectable (at least in the context of the offices that we're talking
about).

Just so there is no confusion on my position: when I say the country
is not ready, I am not espousing that as my personal position. I
don't have any problem with a woman president.
Rich Russell

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:vOqid.353905$MQ5.219330@attbi_s52...

It's kind of a shame, cuz she's a bright woman in many ways.

Bright? Yes, but that's a morally-neutral statement.

-cwk.

"Richard Russell" wrote in message
...

This is a sad comment to make in the greatest country in the world,
but my sense is that any party that nominates a woman for president or
vice-president has conceded the election before it starts.

I think Jean Kirkpatrick could have been elected, possibly in a landslide.
Her "Blame America First" speech created a lot of support for her.

Most democrats I know are HYPOCRITES who espouse public education for everyone
else while they and their descendents enjoy an all expenses paid trip to the
IVY LEAGUE
where they polish their liberal agendas for the "common man".
Greg PP-ASEL-IA

Icebound wrote:


It would be interesting to see if the (conservative) country is ready for a
Woman in the White House, or even in the position of "heartbeat away".

That's kind of a "liberal" concept, isn't it???...


Some liberals may like to think that they are more progressive than
conservatives because they want to see a woman president. But
regardless of party lines, my take on it is that if you are one of those
people want to see a woman president than you are a sexist. Those that
don't bring it up either are not voicing their oppinion or truely don't
care. And it is those that truely don't care whether the president is
male or female that are the more progressive.

When it comes to racism, sexism, etc., those that are the loudest about
it are those that have the problem. Jesse Jackson for instance is one
of the biggest racists out there and he gets away with it because of his
past and because he is famous. And how do you accuse someone like that
of being what they claim to be against?

"When you obsess about the enemy, you become the enemy."
- May be a quote from Babylon 5, not sure. Great show though.