On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:01:51 -0500, "
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 05:46:57 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 25, 7:38*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

m...




. I don't think I made my point well. *In the last election, cultural norms
got up-ended and when that happens, some people get very shook-up.
Legitmately so, I think. Their world-views take a terrible beating. *I don't
think it's nuttiness as much as it is the changing of social mores that have
been in place for years.

I, for the life of me, can't figure out how someone who sounded like Jimmy
Carter could make it to the top post. *But he wasn't really a game changer
the way Obama was. *It took almost 150 years after blacks were freed before
we saw a black in the top political office. *Considering the country isn't
terribly much older than that, white Christian presidents are almost all
we've ever known.

Obama simply represents an incredible difference in what we've been used to.
The older people get, the less they tolerate change and I think that
explains why Tea Party members tend to skew to the elderly. *They're the
ones that experienced the greatest cultural shock and deviation from norms
they've lived with all their lives. * It doesn't make them nutty (so much),
it only makes them "grumpy old men and women" startled by deep changes in
the way things are.

That massive change was read by a lot of older people as the end of the
world that they had known all their lives. *The same shock would have
occurred had a woman or a Jew won the election, AFAIK.

What total race baiting rubbish. The reason Tea Party people are
united
against Obama has nothing to do with his race or gender. It''s
because
of his FAR LEFT policies. You brought up Jimmy Carter. The exact
same kind of rejection occured in response to his bad policies and
mismanagement. Following that flawed logic, the Tea Party
people would be all ****ed off if Sarah Palin were president, right?

..


*Most pundits still
claim those two categories don't enjoy enough broad support among voters. *I
think we'll see an Hispanic president long before a Jew or a woman wins the
job, just because of the demographic shift in our population. *We'll see.

One things that I find interesting is that even though the Republicans need
the Hispanic vote to win the 2012 presidential spot, they have an
unfortunate tendency to blame them for our nation's ills. *At least some of
them still have a functioning mind, as the veto of the Arizona birther law
proved. *I didn't follow that lunacy closely because I assume States are
constitutionally barred from putting "extra" requirements on Federal
elections, particularly presidential ones.

It would not have been an "extra" requirement. It would have simply
required proof satisfactory to AZ of meeting the existing
requirements.
If states can't have their own involvement in federal elections, how
do you explain states having differing requirements and methods
to get on the presidential primary ballots?

And generally election ballots (think: third party). Presidential elections
^^^^^^^^^ general (damned speelczecher)

are *entirely* a state issue. The state chooses how it's electors are chosen
and their rules.


While I tend to agree with border governors that the Feds have seriously
abdicated their role in patrolling the border, that's the way a *lot* of
people like it. *From the California growers to the wealthy who hire them as
nannies and gardeners. *

Forgot to include the libs that want open borders and to get as many
Hispanics as possible, including illegal ones, to vote for them in the
next election.

When have leftists ever cared about the law?