Herman Cain?

[Scooter]

Come down to the end (party nomination) I'd tend to agree but there is a sizable amount that would prefer anyone but him simply for his Mormon beliefs and their stance that they're Christians. the claim is equivalent of Christians calling themselves Jews or Muslims calling themselves Christian (or Jews). It comes down to a question of intellectual honesty that your beliefs differ sufficiently for the group from which you sprang and/or were influenced by to be a religion unto itself. Mormonisms insistence on casting themselves amongst the rubric of Christianity reflects itself upon all Mormons be that fair or not.

And this "I'm a Christian but you're not even though you profess to be one" mentality reflects far more upon those who say it than to those to whom it is directed.

[rubato]

Come down to the end (party nomination) I'd tend to agree but there is a sizable amount that would prefer anyone but him simply for his Mormon beliefs and their stance that they're Christians. the claim is equivalent of Christians calling themselves Jews or Muslims calling themselves Christian (or Jews). It comes down to a question of intellectual honesty that your beliefs differ sufficiently for the group from which you sprang and/or were influenced by to be a religion unto itself. Mormonisms insistence on casting themselves amongst the rubric of Christianity reflects itself upon all Mormons be that fair or not.

Many Christian sects believe that they are the 'only true Christians' and everyone else are as different as Moslems.

The distinctions are somewhat arbitrary. It is rarer for a sect to be inclusive rather than exclusive.

yrs,
rubato

[BoSoxGal]

Just to clarify, I'm no supporter of Cain or his positions - I just think having two presidential candidate nominees who were both black would be very progressive.

As to Powell; I really admired the guy before he sold out to sell W's war in Iraq to the UN. But I never bought for a minute that he chose not to run for President solely due to family concerns. I have no doubt it was made clear to him that the GOP would not get behind him as their candidate.

I like you, LJ, but you are enormously naive about the racism still rampant in BOTH parties. It still shocks me that we elected Obama. I'll believe in your certitude when I see a black GOP Presidential nominee. I don't expect to see any such thing in my lifetime.

[Lord Jim]

you are enormously naive about the racism still rampant in BOTH parties.

And I believe the evidence suggests that your view of the extent of that racism is a huge inflation of the reality.

I have no doubt it was made clear to him that the GOP would not get behind him as their candidate.

Again, the available evidence, (as opposed to what I guess must be your "gut feeling") suggests that you are absolutely wrong about that. Not only did the polls of rank and file Republicans consistently show Powell as far and away the first choice of Republicans, but he also received a lot of pressure from many in the party establishment to run. I have no doubt that should he have chosen to run for the GOP nomination in either '96 or 2000, that he would have had a very good chance at winning the nomination.

I never bought for a minute that he chose not to run for President solely due to family concerns

Well yeas and no. There was more to it, and here race concerns did play a role but not in a large scale sense. It's been fairly well established that Powell's wife was adamantly opposed to his running because she was afraid that if we won, or it looked like he might win that some racist nut would take a shot at him.

It still shocks me that we elected Obama.

It didn't "shock" me in the slightest. (The only thing that did somewhat surprise me was that I had thought that the first Black President was more likely to be a moderate/conservative Republican than a liberal Democrat....But once he got into the race I fully expected he would have an excellent chance to win...you may recall I was hoping Hillary would get the Demo nomination because I thought the GOP would have a better chance against her...not because she was woman, but because she was such a "lightening rod." )

Given the fact that Obama was elected and you were shocked by the fact that he could win, and I wasn't the least bit surprised.....

which of us would seem to have the view about this issue that best reflects reality?

Are there still people who would use race as a factor in their calculus about who to vote for? Of course. But I think your views about the extent of racist attitudes regarding who people would vote for are at least 25-30 years out of date; possibly more like 40 years.

[BoSoxGal]

You should check out the FBI stats on the growth of militia movements and other right wing radical groups since Obama's election in 2008.

I believed wholeheartedly in the willingness of my kind of people to elect Obama; I just didn't recognize how terrifically successful his campaign would be at motivating the youth vote. Same kind of people, by the way, that you ridiculed when Sue U recently posted a young voter's anti-war rant.

Whether he can motivate that vote again when so many young folks are among the unemployed (and overburdened by student loans) remains to be seen.

I remain confident in my assessment of the level of racism still prevalent in our society. You seem to forget that you live in a liberal bastion that you repeatedly decry, while taking you cues re: the GOP from media. I've lived the majority of my life in rural America, among the party base. The word 'nigger' isn't rapper lingo out here in that other, red America. We haven't come all that far from Birmingham when it comes to hearts & minds.

[Crackpot]

And this "I'm a Christian but you're not even though you profess to be one" mentality reflects far more upon those who say it than to those to whom it is directed.

To a point I'd agree, but, there has to be a point where one can logically say that there is a distinct difference. I put that at the same point that separated Christians from Jews. That is a fundamental difference in the nature of God. Just like the theology of Trinity divorced Christian from Jew the "polytheistic" implications Mormonism takes with their approach to the hereafter divorces them from all other Christian sects which in itself is already a big tent considering it houses both Catholics and SDAs (one of which believes the other is the anti-christ)

[Crackpot]

This is the same issue Scientists have with "Creation Science" (not to be confused with "The Church of Christ Scientist" which for different reasons both of the previous have the same problem with) when your core belief contradicts core principals of how the larger group is defined you lose your claim of being part of that group.

[Scooter]

There are plenty of "Christians" who, by their lights, would say the same about you and what you believe, so in the end it is nothing but a subjective judgment.

[Crackpot]

No doubt there are but that doesn't render my argument meaningless as I am using a rather narrow and definitive brush as where others tend to paint in rather large swaths. It the difference of disqualification according to a definable standard or the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

[Scooter]

Others would paint you non-Christian based on a standard which to them is no less definable. You are playing with words.

But fine, let's play. The issue is "the nature of God", correct? Do you belong to a sect that uses the Nicene Creed including the filioque clause? If so, then according to the Orthodox, you (and everyone else who is not Orthodox) is not a Christian, because to profess the Creed in that form is a perversion of the very nature of God.

Your move.

[Crackpot]

Could you link them?

[Scooter]

Link what?

[Lord Jim]

You should check out the FBI stats on the growth of militia movements and other right wing radical groups since Obama's election in 2008.

Well laying aside for the moment that not all militia groups are "racist" lets consider the fact that the truly relevant point is not how many "groups" there are, but how many members these "groups" have....(after all, you could easily have a group with 50 members that had a falling out amongst themselves with 10 members each joining a splinter group and and 10 of them quitting altogether....in that case you would have four more groups but actually a smaller number of members overall)

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, (which can hardly be called a "right wing" organization, and who's whole purpose is to monitor these organizations) as of 2010, there were a total of 1002 active "hate groups"...(this includes hate groups of all types; including anti-white groups like The Nation of Islam)

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map

Getting accurate membership numbers on these groups is always problematic, (since the groups themselves and those who make a living opposing them both have a vested interest in inflating the numbers) but let's assume for the sake of argument that the average membership of these groups was 100 people...(A most generous estimate, given the fact that when one of them has a rally they're lucky if they can show up with a dozen)

That would put the total membership in these groups (all of them (Klan, Aryan Nations, Neo-Nazi, etc.) nationwide at about 100,000....

In a nation with a population of 300 million people....

That doesn't look particularly significant to me....

There may have been fewer "groups" 30 or 40 years ago, but I think I'd be on firm ground saying they probably had a lot more members.

[Lord Jim]

I believed wholeheartedly in the willingness of my kind of people to elect Obama

I hate to be the one to break this to you BSG, (well, okay, I don't hate it that much.... ) but there ain't enough of "your kind of people" to elect Obama dog catcher on a nationwide basis:



http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010- ... erals.aspx

I posted this chart before...

There's a word for the candidate who thinks he can get elected President based on the support of Liberals...

That word is loser....

The fact is that Obama would never have been elected if tens of millions of folks who aren't "your kind of people" hadn't voted for him....

[rubato]

Revisionism, what?

The chairman of the Republican party has already gone to the NAACP and admitted the Southern Strategy. In effect he admitted that they curried the racist vote whom they appear to continue to have a lock on.

yrs,
rubato

[Guinevere]

His current efforts to pander to the extremists makes him look like a flip-flopping hypocrite"

That's because he *is* a flip-flopping hypocrite.