Which Comes First?

FROM: Tony C
DATE: Thursday May 2, 2002 -- 8:51:29 am

I agree with you that the majority elects one of their own for the most part, so we won't see any non-white Presidents for a LONG time.

I suppose it's more possible that we'd see a female President and it probably just takes a really electric female poitician to make this happen. So I think this is more likely than 1 or 3.

FROM: Chris [E-Mail]
DATE: Thursday May 2, 2002 -- 9:00:29 am

I think we will see either a minority or female President in our lifetime, and that person will be Republican. Women and minorities tend to vote Democrat, so the candidate running as a Democrat will not be able to get enough momentum to overcome the built in prejudices and bias that come with being a women or a minority. A Republican female or minority, however, would pull all the traditional conservative support, plus a lot of mainstream and liberal support too.

Option 3 will never happen. The major parties have a chokehold on the election process.

FROM: Ryan
DATE: Thursday May 2, 2002 -- 9:26:20 am

Can we add one to the list?

4. A president that isn't Christian.

I agree that we'll probably have a female president first (though a non-white president is almost as likely, I think). I disagree, Chris, that being a Republican would be much more of a boost for a female/minority candidate. I think that would it take an extremely *moderate* candidate to pull it off.

I totally agree with you about the election process, though, Chris. But you knew that. :)

Whatever the case, it's an interesting statement on our society that none of those four has even come close to happening yet... it depresses me.

FROM: Patrick
DATE: Thursday May 2, 2002 -- 9:45:22 am

I think this wouldn't be a ping if Colin Powell had run in the last presidential election.

BTW - look what the Republicans are doing in the Texas state elections -- running some minority candidates(really pseudo-minorities beacuse one of them is a multi-millionare).

FROM: Greg
DATE: Thursday May 2, 2002 -- 12:47:14 pm

Elecations are run by money. Those who run have money, those who vote have money, and those that win spent the most money. Who has all the money? White males. Women and minorities will catch up slowly. And the first non white male president will be someone of mixed heritage... like Tiger Woods!

FROM: fresh
DATE: Thursday May 2, 2002 -- 9:39:15 pm

i thought which is on 2nd and who is on first

FROM: Robert [E-Mail]
DATE: Friday May 3, 2002 -- 11:42:46 am

Speaking of a non-Christian president: Star Jones wouldn't vote for an atheist. I won't vote for Star Jones!

FROM: Scott R
DATE: Tuesday May 21, 2002 -- 7:10:14 pm

My fote for president: Any African American Jewish female dwarf that is over the age of forty, toothless, with an addiction to alcohol and uncontrollable urges to gamble. Or maybe Billy Corgan of the Smashing Pumpkins.

FROM: Big Fat Lizard
DATE: Friday June 14, 2002 -- 7:01:42 am

I think some kind of "fall of government" will happen in our lifetime - something really drastic - will eventually happen...I think by the time I'm 80 years old - I'll be replacing most of my body parts with machines...I think we'll eventually become cyborgs...if the stupid government doesn't keep holding back technology (for some reason they do BIG time!) -

I read the Kiplinger Washington Letter when I was a child (now I'm 30) - it said - "someday soon we'll be able to hang our television sets on the wall like a picture..." well it said that when I was thirteen...uhhhh - okay 17 years later they're still barely releasing screen tv's....WHY? do they hold back technology so much!?!

FROM: Marcus Mackey
DATE: Friday June 14, 2002 -- 7:42:00 am

Honestly, after watching the last election, I think we could've voted for Kermit the Frog and done better. It's terribly sad when the best candidates in my eyes (Orrin Hatch and John McCain; both Republicans but both of the more moderate variety) couldn't make it out of the primary. I'm typically a *moderate* Democratic voter, but even I didn't want to vote for Gore. Yet, Gore vs. Dubya... I filled in for the G-man (and no, not George). It was a lesser of two evils approach, and unfortunately... I think we ended up with Darth Sidius (a/k/a "The Emperor") in the White House. It's a case where you as a party *MARKET* a name moreso than you push a candidate that stands up and provides real concerns and issues people want. Then again, with the levels of illiteracy still there, and the other faction of people that don't give a damn, no wonder why marketing wins. If I plastered my face on TV every 10 seconds for the next 4 years, I'd probably win the election too (even without saying any agenda at all).

The problem with politics (in this country) as it is anymore, is that it achieves nothing. Partisan stances (now almost fabricated out of bitterness between parties less than arguing over "REAL" issues) basically leave us in eternal stagnancy, and when one party does happen to fix things (as did Clinton with the deficit, giving us a surplus; almost magical that he achieved this), you can well bet that another jackass will step-up to the plate and bring us a multi-billion dollar deficit again (projected to hit there sometime next year; think I read $100 billion but I can't recall) while increasing military spending when we "ALREADY" have the largest military force out there. Of course... I forgot... we need to get better bombers than the fleet of B1 (non-Stealth) bombers Reagan bought that couldn't even knock the B-52's (no, not the band) off because they had serious wing-icing issues.

The irony, didn't Bush in his agenda state that "What America needs is someone that pays closer attention to the Domestic issues concerning this country." Soooo... ummm... George, what's your agenda for things on this side of the pond? Did you forget in all of the 9.11 anti-terrorism propogating that you had a country over here with a broken economy, forget that all of your spending is racking up the deficit again, or is it just me? Last I looked... the Palestenian's, Israel, and the like weren't residing within our confines, and you're doing *EXACTLY* what you said our president shouldn't be doing (sticking his nose in the middle; something you criticized Clinton for, and some your dad and Mr. Reagan both did handily). Granted, 9.11 was a tremendous tragedy... but do I think any monkey at the helm would've handled the atrocity any less respectfully? I think Gore, McCain, Hatch, or even good ol' Libby coulda' untanked the same can of whoop ass that Dubya did. Yet when I hear "Our economy is turning the corner" and hereafter the DOW drops below 10,000; our deficit is growing, spending on education (something Bush promised) is cut all across the board, and efforts are made to keep building up military might, while taking a *piss on it* stance on the Environment... uhhh, something wrong here, isn't there?!? Starting to sound like 1960's era political thought...

Does it matter what or any of these potentials from Ryan's list make it in? Honestly, I'd like to see a female make it in for a number of reasons that I hold to myself, perhaps in prejudice, but I just feel that in many cases that they'd make a better candidate. Minorities could lead to trouble, as there's already enough quibbling with people like Jesse Jackson in politics bringing the us vs. them mentality into continuance (to quote Rodney King "Why can't we all just get along?"; my answer: "Cause you won't let the past die."). Granted, there's negatives in all nationalities (even in my own native Irish blood, also terrorist radicals with stuff like the IRA in Ireland), I'm not racist by any stretch, but it seems like some sides have chips on their shoulders more than others. Then again, perhaps that's just it... they think they've been oppressed for an eternity and now have the chance to oppress us coming and want to, rather than be the better people and show us up by being what in many cases, my ancestors (that I had nothing to do with) should've been.

As far as a non-partisan politician... doubtful. Although how do you define non-partisan? There's always issues that divide candidates, and those generally draw the lines in the sand that generate partisanship. The problem is, the two parties we have now, they're old, they're decrepid. It's like having an old guard way of thinking competing against another old guard way of thinking, neither of which can fill the "NEW" stature of the world today. We need someone that thinks outside of the box, that can find a way to get an agenda rolling (hell, one that even *HAS* an Agenda, it's clear Dubya is grasping at straws to even figure out what toothpaste to use in the morning), and somehow manage to push a good percentage of it through. This stagnancy we have under the current system is killing progress in this country. It's a case of our checks and balances being out of whack, in all evidence, based strongly out of partisan-embroiled grievances.

FROM: Paul [E-Mail]
DATE: Friday June 14, 2002 -- 8:41:29 am

Does it matter what or any of these potentials from Ryan's list make it in?

That's Paul to you, bub.

FROM: Ryan
DATE: Friday June 14, 2002 -- 9:25:01 am

"Cause you won't let the past die."

That's a hard thing to do when the past is still very much affecting the present.

FROM: jerry averill
DATE: Tuesday August 6, 2002 -- 10:42:04 pm

FROM: I think
DATE: Tuesday May 2, 2006 -- 3:23:37 pm

i think that we will have a black female non christian not belonging to any political party