ICE Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 So she is Powell's replacement? Christ have we went to stevestojan that bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 CR=MM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Huh? Please tell me why she is such a bad choice. I cant see why anyone woudl have a problem with her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Huh? Please tell me why she is such a bad choice. I cant see why anyone woudl have a problem with her. 119435[/snapback] I don't really have a problem with her... Hence my MM equation. I just think she is just another "yes man" Bush needed to "shake the tree" with a new pick. Same old, same old... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 She's a republican highly intelligent black woman. dems know that women and blacks HAVE to be dems or they are stupid Uncle Toms (what is the female equivalent?). Same reason they hate Clarence Thomas- he doesn't fit their preconcieved notions. She graduated from college early, got her PhD early (24?), is a concert pianist, was a Provost of Stanford (the youngest one ever), is an expert on the USSR, and would like to be the Comissioner of the NFL or MLB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 So she is Powell's replacement? Christ have we went to stevestojan that bad? 119430[/snapback] Please, ICE...enlighten us with your doubtlessly scintillating reasoning as to why Condi Rice is a bad choice for SecState... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 I think she is more suited to be sec state than NSA. This is a good fit for her. Cabinet members are supposed to be experts in thier field, and this she is. There are few people who are qualified for each and every cabinet position, she is fortunate enough to be qualified for several. That said, I am a conservative, but I can see why some people do not like rumsfeld, ashcroft and many other members of this administration. I can even see it if someone had a problem with powell, but Rice is beyond me. I just dont see where you are coming from here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 She's a republican highly intelligent black woman. dems know that women and blacks HAVE to be dems or they are stupid Uncle Toms (what is the female equivalent?). Same reason they hate Clarence Thomas- he doesn't fit their preconcieved notions. She graduated from college early, got her PhD early (24?), is a concert pianist, was a Provost of Stanford (the youngest one ever), is an expert on the USSR, and would like to be the Comissioner of the NFL or MLB. 119447[/snapback] All that is noted. Some of it is untrue. I just don't see her as truly being heard. I have no preconcieved notions. I probably agree with her on a lot of points. Put her in a different republican administration and all those assets you mentioned would help her flourish. She would be effective. Like Bill's caoches under TD. In a Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld administration, she is a gold fish in a wet hanky, just as Colin was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Funny how bush has gone from being stupid, so he surounds himself with highly talented people to "Bush is supreme ruler and everyone around his is his lapdog" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Funny how bush has gone from being stupid, so he surounds himself with highly talented people to "Bush is supreme ruler and everyone around his is his lapdog" 119483[/snapback] Don't kid your self... Bush ISN'T stupid. He knows he is in control. He makes the point perfectly clear. The thing is he gets his extremist polices through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 The thing is he gets his extremist polices through. 119484[/snapback] At least 59 million people (or near 53% of voters) don't think his policies are extremist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 At least 59 million people (or near 53% of voters) don't think his policies are extremist. 119713[/snapback] For the sake of accuracy, 51 percent. And if you really believe the gist of your sentence, you're kidding yourself. Plenty of people think he oversteps the bounds. And quite a few don't have -D next to their name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 I'd wager that many of the 51% were voting strictly against abortion and gay marriage. Like it or not, the Republican party has hijaked and monopolized moral behavior and religion to a point where certain people will vote for whomever is put on the Republican ticket. When you get a group that so clearly votes against their own economic interests, you just have step back and realize that you're not dealing with an informed cross section of the poplace. Realize this: it comes down to the fact that the Bush people (Karl Rove) ran a better campaign than did the Dems - it's as simple as that. Both parties tried to manipulate the people, and the Pubes did a better job of it. That's why Dubya is still in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 When you get a group that so clearly votes against their own economic interests, you just have step back and realize that you're not dealing with an informed cross section of the poplace. 119778[/snapback] When you get a group that so clearly votes against their own moral interests, you just have to step back and realize that you're not dealing with an informed section of the populace. Money isn't everything. If worse economic conditions meant an end to 1.3 million babies being aborted every year, no government sponsored embryonic stem cell research, abstinence education, upholding marriage between a man and a woman, a recognition of moral absolutes, etc. then I would take the worse economic conditions anyday. If you consider living a comfortable life most important, then I think you may be the one who needs to be informed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 She's a republican highly intelligent black woman. dems know that women and blacks HAVE to be dems or they are stupid Uncle Toms (what is the female equivalent?). Same reason they hate Clarence Thomas- he doesn't fit their preconcieved notions. She graduated from college early, got her PhD early (24?), is a concert pianist, was a Provost of Stanford (the youngest one ever), is an expert on the USSR, and would like to be the Comissioner of the NFL or MLB. 119447[/snapback] Given the threat presented by the USSR, I can see why her expertise in that area would be so valuable???. She is a brilliant woman, no question about it but I don't think she has the expertise needed in the next four years. Moreover, she doesn't have any more credibility with foreign governments than Powell ultimately ended up with. Likely, she will have as little influence with the President on policy as Powell had. Cheney and Rumsfeld are driving that bus. Powell learned that the hard way. Leaders of other nations would be foolish to listen to anything she has to say if it in any way conflicts with what Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and Wolfowitz have to say. I think it is unfortunate that you chose to bring race into this discussion. What does that have to do with anything? Just because she is a black woman does not mean that I have to gush and giggle over her promotion does it? I think an objective assessment of her record and her expertise is what is called for, not a discussion of her race. We are at war and she has no military experience having never commanded troops in the field. She is an expert on the USSR, not the middle east and though you may not have noticed, there seems to be some trouble in that area of the world. Powell was frequently publicly embarassed by being trumped on foreign policy by Cheney and company. I don't see that changing with such a weak appointment. She has been loyal but not effective. Books by Clarke, Woodward and others pretty much demonstrate that behind the scenes, she is a light weight in this administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 I'd wager that many of the 51% were voting strictly against abortion and gay marriage. Like it or not, the Republican party has hijaked and monopolized moral behavior and religion to a point where certain people will vote for whomever is put on the Republican ticket. When you get a group that so clearly votes against their own economic interests, you just have step back and realize that you're not dealing with an informed cross section of the poplace. Realize this: it comes down to the fact that the Bush people (Karl Rove) ran a better campaign than did the Dems - it's as simple as that. Both parties tried to manipulate the people, and the Pubes did a better job of it. That's why Dubya is still in office. 119778[/snapback] I'd also wager that a great number of them were voting against Kerry, rather than for Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 Given the threat presented by the USSR, I can see why her expertise in that area would be so valuable???. She is a brilliant woman, no question about it but I don't think she has the expertise needed in the next four years. Moreover, she doesn't have any more credibility with foreign governments than Powell ultimately ended up with. Likely, she will have as little influence with the President on policy as Powell had. Cheney and Rumsfeld are driving that bus. Powell learned that the hard way. Leaders of other nations would be foolish to listen to anything she has to say if it in any way conflicts with what Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and Wolfowitz have to say. I think it is unfortunate that you chose to bring race into this discussion. What does that have to do with anything? Just because she is a black woman does not mean that I have to gush and giggle over her promotion does it? I think an objective assessment of her record and her expertise is what is called for, not a discussion of her race. We are at war and she has no military experience having never commanded troops in the field. She is an expert on the USSR, not the middle east and though you may not have noticed, there seems to be some trouble in that area of the world. Powell was frequently publicly embarassed by being trumped on foreign policy by Cheney and company. I don't see that changing with such a weak appointment. She has been loyal but not effective. Books by Clarke, Woodward and others pretty much demonstrate that behind the scenes, she is a light weight in this administration. 119819[/snapback] Books by Clarke and Woodward? Well that clears it up completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 I'm surprised Richard Armitage's name didn't come up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 I'd wager that many of the 51% were voting strictly against abortion and gay marriage. Like it or not, the Republican party has hijaked and monopolized moral behavior and religion to a point where certain people will vote for whomever is put on the Republican ticket. When you get a group that so clearly votes against their own economic interests, you just have step back and realize that you're not dealing with an informed cross section of the poplace. 119778[/snapback] I'm just curious...are you suggesting that there are "Dead Dog Republicans" (that is, Republicans who would rather vote for a dead dog than a Democrat)?" Are you suggesting, alternately, that there is no such thing as a "Dead Dog Democrat"? And when you say we're "not dealing with an informed cross section of the poplace," are you suggesting that Bush won because the country is not very intelligent? That's the way I read that, anyway. You're free to clarify if you want, but I suspect you aren't so narrow-minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 16, 2004 Share Posted November 16, 2004 I'd wager that many of the 51% were voting strictly against abortion and gay marriage. Like it or not, the Republican party has hijaked and monopolized moral behavior and religion to a point where certain people will vote for whomever is put on the Republican ticket. When you get a group that so clearly votes against their own economic interests, you just have step back and realize that you're not dealing with an informed cross section of the poplace. Realize this: it comes down to the fact that the Bush people (Karl Rove) ran a better campaign than did the Dems - it's as simple as that. Both parties tried to manipulate the people, and the Pubes did a better job of it. That's why Dubya is still in office. 119778[/snapback] You mean like Democrats have hijacked race and the welfare/impoverished segment of society? They must be incredibly well informed. Go watch Farenheit 911 and pretend it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts