Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
America needs a leader that barely made it thru high school. A guy ya can sit down with over some Bud Light and discuss sports, guns, and politics. A guy that ya kin go huntin' witt, someone who wears his baseball cap backwards, and wears t-shirts with Jesus motifs.
No, no we need an aloof leader, with impecable Ivy League credtials, and an abysmal record!
He certainly didn't hide his educational background. And he wasn't a north easterner. Bush didn't have to present himself as anything other than he was. Not even his most severe critic has accused him of being a phony, the guy was a cowboy. His father, on the other hand, was and presented himself as, you suggest and he won the nomination twice. Kinda blows a hole in your argument, doesn't it?
George HW won the nomination twice before the rise of far right evangelical. He was the nominee back when you didn't have to pander to the religious right or the Tea party to get nominated.
No, no we need an aloof leader, with impecable Ivy League credtials, and an abysmal record!
Exactly, people with college degrees are stupid. You get it, but millions of stupid people don't.
The next American leader should be like Larry, the cable guy.
Exactly, people with college degrees are stupid. You get it, but millions of stupid people don't.
The next American leader should be like Larry, the cable guy.
Ah, no. Aren't we told by the left that anything short of any Ive League education makes one unworthy of consiedration for public office. Of course it is the view of the left that anything short of an Ivy League education makes one something like the cable guy.
George HW won the nomination twice before the rise of far right evangelical. He was the nominee back when you didn't have to pander to the religious right or the Tea party to get nominated.
Too funny, I don't think your understanding of the religous right is very complete. The term was coined to describe those that supported Ronald Reagan. Of course every modern Republican nominee had to be acceptable to the right, as every Dem nominee needs to be acceptable to the left.
Ah, no. Aren't we told by the left that anything short of any Ive League education makes one unworthy of consiedration for public office. Of course it is the view of the left that anything short of an Ivy League education makes one something like the cable guy.
Come on, partner! I'm on your side. We want some who has common sense instead of book learnin', a guy who was captain of the high school football team instead of someone who was captain of the debating team. And goes to mega-church every Sunday!
Shake on that bro!
Come on, partner! I'm on your side. We want some who has common sense instead of book learnin', a guy who was captain of the high school football team instead of someone who was captain of the debating team.
Shake on that bro!
Yes, yes, the Editor of the Harvard Law Review has done such a bang up job, we are sure to have no problems if we simply elected more Ivy educated folks. But you know, we proles are just dumb old boys. If we were simply smart enough to recognize how dumb we are all would be right with the world.
Too funny, I don't think your understanding of the religous right is very complete. The term was coined to describe those that supported Ronald Reagan. Of course every modern Republican nominee had to be acceptable to the right, as every Dem nominee needs to be acceptable to the left.
Right but the religious right didn't become the force that it is, specifically the evangelicals, until the 2000 election. It hit it's peak influence in 2004, carrying Bush to victory.
Right but the religious right didn't become the force that it is, specifically the evangelicals, until the 2000 election. It hit it's peak influence in 2004, carrying Bush to victory.
"By the end of Ronald Reagan's presidential administration, Christian Right organizations were generally in a phase of decline. After Reagan’s two terms in office, donations were decreasing, possibly because after eight years of Christian Right-supported leadership, the nation did not appear to donators to be in the same state of moral peril as they perceived it to be when Reagan first took office.[12] The Moral Majority’s financial base seriously eroded when it became part of the Liberty Federation and financial difficulties ultimately were a major factor in the decision to disband the organization.[13] Falwell, though, gave a more optimistic public opinion about the Moral Majority’s dissolution. Announcing the disbandment of the Moral Majority in 1989 in Las Vegas, Falwell declared, “Our goal has been achieved…The religious right is solidly in place and…religious conservatives in America are now in for the duration.”[14]"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
