takoma wrote:As to Lincoln's decision, though, we'll never know whether race relations would be better now if tha Confederacy had been allowed to stand and they had (presumably) given up slavery a couple of decades later. I'm certainly not advocating (in retrospect) another generation of slavery, just saying that judgment of his decision to fight secession is complex.

Why do you think it would have ended that soon?

Anonymous wrote:I think we should ban anyone who supports the right of secession. How can you have a President who believes in that? What if Lincoln shrugged his shoulders and said "eh. to each his own"?

I realize you were not being literal about the ban, since that would require amending the Constitution, so I'll agree that advocacy of secession is prima facie evidence that someone should not be elected president. As to Lincoln's decision, though, we'll never know whether race relations would be better now if tha Confederacy had been allowed to stand and they had (presumably) given up slavery a couple of decades later. I'm certainly not advocating (in retrospect) another generation of slavery, just saying that judgment of his decision to fight secession is complex.

I think we should ban anyone who supports the right of secession. How can you have a President who believes in that? What if Lincoln shrugged his shoulders and said "eh. to each his own"?

I would support it as long as it included anyone who spent time in Texas.

How much support would there be for a constitionual amendment that restricts Texans from become president?

Anonymous wrote:You can tell Perry is a strong candidate. Liberals are nervous, thats a good sign.

Yes. It shows we are sane.

On the other hand, answering your childish taunt appears to indicate otherwise. Life is so complex!

Anonymous wrote:You can tell Perry is a strong candidate. Liberals are nervous, thats a good sign.

You can tell Republicans are nervous. That's why all the press in the last two days was about whether Mitch Daniels or Paul Ryan would run. Aw, your current baker's dozen aren't cutting it, huh? Perry endured all of a half week in the spotlight. And your own people, apparently unimpressed by his gaffe to backpedal ratio, are shopping for new frontrunners.

You can tell Perry is a strong candidate. Liberals are nervous, thats a good sign.

If he took his shirt off and hugged a tiger, he could be another macho Putin....he is yet another reason I am voting for Obama again....Perry terrifies me

A previous poster is absolutely correct. Perry makes GW Bush seem like a deep, intelligent, nuanced guy. And Perry's good 'ol boy act is just that, an act. While the Texas taxpayers have been paying for his rented mansion (as the real Texas governors' mansion has been undergoing renovation), Perry billed the state government for a variety of personal items, including it was reported, a Food and Wine magazine subscription! Guess that Pretty Perry is really more brie and chablis than barbeque 'n 'Bud.

Big Business created the Tea Party. They aren't about to let it take out their preferred candidate.

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:Yeah - who was the last Rep presidential candidate who wasn't the early favorite? I don't remember the situation in 1980, but it certainly hasn't happened since then. Reps do what they're told.

Sure it has. McCain won the New Hampshire primary in 2000. Dole was the early favorite and won in 96, mainly because field consisted of him and a bunch of nuts: Pat Buchanon, Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes etc. Kind of like the current Republican field. Romney and the wingnuts. I think Romney is a very good bet.

I'm not talking about early primary wins; I mean the pick of the press and the people they allegedly quote. McCain's win in NH was dramatic because it wasn't supposed to be him (IIRC - I don't claim a very good memory of this).

Rick Perry succeeded to the title of Best Gubernatorial Hairdoo when Blago left office.

Anonymous wrote:Obama is more of a lunatic, worse for the country, head bobbing between teleprompters, adverse to constitutional retraint, than any and all of the GOP candidates.

I think Bush and Cheney set the record for constitutional abuse. Dick Cheney tried to argue that he wasn't part of the executive branch and therefore not subject to presidential record keeping laws. Good one there. Then there was the novel argument on torture and rendition. Then there were Bush's "signing memos" in which he attempted to spin laws that he did not like. He stretched domestic spying to its ultimate.

When you use flowery terms like "constitutional restraint" you are ONLY talking about issues that break your way. In other words you are a total hypocrite.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your nominee was always Mitt Romney. All the rest is window dressing. You know that, right?

Yeah - who was the last Rep presidential candidate who wasn't the early favorite? I don't remember the situation in 1980, but it certainly hasn't happened since then. Reps do what they're told.

Sure it has. McCain won the New Hampshire primary in 2000. Dole was the early favorite and won in 96, mainly because field consisted of him and a bunch of nuts: Pat Buchanon, Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes etc. Kind of like the current Republican field. Romney and the wingnuts. I think Romney is a very good bet.