Okay, try this link and see if it works...

http://www.atheists.org/f...heism9.htm

"Atheists lag behind blacks and gays in terms of political appeal at the ballot box. "The idea of voting for a homosexual for president remains unacceptable to 37% of the population," reported the Gallup survey, "placing it second to atheists on the unacceptable list, out of the eight groups tested. Fifty-nine percent of the population would vote for a homosexual, which is up significantly from 26% in 1978, when the question was first asked."

Blacks generated approval from only 37% of voters in 1958, when Gallup first included this survey category. "That number rose through the 1960s and into the 1970s, although, as recently as 1987, only 79% of Americans said they would vote for a black person for president. By 1997 that number had risen to 93%, and it is now at 95%."

___
[This message was edited Mon Aug 26 10:01:07 PDT 2002 by TheMax]

I get it! You are really trying to guarantee the reelection of George Bush.
You sly Republican you.

well if al can't beat bush who can?

Maybe, if he does something with that plastered hairdo!

sag10 said:

WHAT DOES HIS HAIR HAVE TO DO with being a leader?

thechronic said:

theC
If he can't get better control of his hair.How can he control the government???They are more unruly than his hair.

put

the

blunt

down

...

TheMax said:

Rather than "atheist" it should read "Non-Christian", I can't see a Muslim candidate winning any time soon.

These polls are all very nice done hypothetically, see what happens when the black/gay presidential candidates really exist... their policies may automatically not sound as good as the "Other guy".

TheMax said:

I wouldn't vote for him,either.And,despite what conventional wisdom tells you,I doubt that he would get alot of support from Blacks.

It's irrelevant who sits in the white house, if that person is the ONLY person you have on your team. This country is run by congress, lobbyists, multinational corporations, the two parties--dumbo the elephant and a jackass--and unless you stack ALL of them with your peeps you aint gonna have isht but an ineffective brother in the big house who can't do much of anything but get his weekly perm.

Al has done a lot to fight police brutality in New York, and he really took the point with the murder of Amadou Diallo and sodomizing of Abner Louima when no one would touch the issue. And it is in large part due to Rev. Al that "racial profiling" was introduced into the language of the country to describe a very very real problem in America. And for that he gets my respect.

But by the time ANYONE gets in the White House, they have had to cut so many deals to get there, they spend their first four years making promises upon promises to get reelected and their next four years paying all their dues.

If folks want power, we will only get that by fully participating in the entire electoral enterprise--the three branches, the fourth estate (media which shapes all the discourse on the issues), lobbyists and political action committees which fund campaigns, etc. Focusing on ONE man in the white house is inconsequential especially if that's all we have.

I think Al is regarded as something of a buffoon in the black community, so I really doubt he'd win with the white people he's always attacking. Sure, Bush is an idiot, but he has big business behind him, and that goes a long way.

Now, I personally feel that Will Smith's recent commments about moving into politics are interesting. He's a smart dude, who's incredibly popular with blacks and whites alike. Maybe one day Mr. Smith will go to Washington? You might laugh, but check out the Rolling Stone interview from a couple of years back. He's very politically savvy, and Bill Clinton has been something of a mentor to him. It could happen folks!

I might vote for Wil.

JediMaster said:

well if we have to put will in the office to get him to stop making those terrible movies it's worth it!

Considering that the last three elections (92, 96 and 00) were all won by someone with less than 50% of the vote, I don't doubt anything anymore. Strange that it has been since 1988 since anyone has gotten over 50%.

Where are those Reagan sized landslides when we need them (49 states!- now that is a landslide!)

Sharpton's got a spotty record, that's for sure. The Tawana Brawley thing confuses me to this day, and I lived for a few years in the area where it all went down. (Un)truth test aside, it appears very likely that Sharpton exploited her to put himself on the political map.

Yes, he's done some good in more recent affairs, but at what cost?

This much is certain, though: I'm not sure how he'd expect to build political bridges. He might, however, approach foreign affairs with a bit more caution than our current leader. (Preparing for war while acting like nothing's going on and without even asking Congress for permission.)

I'd think about it if he'd stop w/ the damn finger waves...

thechronic said:

Amen! Especially after MiB II! Man, did that movie suck!

Hell no he couldn't win the presidency. First off, his color would be in the way, because as you know, Americans are scared to death of a black politician. Secondly, he would be hammered for his personal problems. Third, all of the "so-called Christians" would pronounce him as a heretic and ruin his character. And, even the voters who would remain strong after all of that, would not be a fraction of what we would need to fight Bush. There needs to be someone like Robert Kennedy to fight W. Someone who is down with the pursuit of equality, and still appeals to the white masses. Even someone like Martin Luther King, but in the end, his personal situations caused him to be blackmailed by the government, and put a halt to his pursuits. So, it has to be someone who appeals to all, and has a clean and somewhat untarnished record.

Peace,
JD

JDODSON said:

cuz that sure worked for dubya didn't it?

on the real JDOD I like your posts so this aint a dig against you... but in the end the electorate gets the leadership IT deserves if voters don't organize and participate fully in the electoral enterprise--voting, lobbying, campaign finance, etc.

We need a new breed leader... Stand UP and ORGANIZE!

Al Sharpton is a criminal

IceNine said:

LOL. And "Whitewater" Clinton isn't? "Iran Contra" Reagan/Bush weren't? Enron Cheney isn't?

NuPwrSoul said:

Did I, at any point, say that other politicians or public figures were not criminals?

I think not.

I reiterate: Al Sharpton is a giant criminal

IceNine said:

ROFL. No you didn't exclude other politicians, but your statement and further reiteration IMPLIES that this something unique about Sharpton. And BTW out of curiosity what is the basis upon which you make the claim?

R u 4 real? Hell no he would'nt win...Who would want him 2? Then again...there should b no more Bush's n office!!! They SUCK...all of them!

NuPwrSoul said:

That cool thing on HBO where they have him on camera trying to make deals to launder drug money for the mob.

And... just to clarify. ALL politicians are criminals!

IceNine said:

Naaaw, see what was REALLY criminal was that COWBOY HAT

NuPwrSoul said:

No shit!!!

:LOL:

JDODSON said:

That's the case with everyone who runs for President. And gets elected. Some moreso than others.


Heheheee! No offense, JD, but who has ever been elected that has an untarnished record?

Supernova said:

actually Supernova, this is a more recent phenom...I do believe Gary Hart (88?) was the last Presidental candidate who *was* affected by personal matters and was prevented from running..


nowadays he "affair" seems tame compared to other elected officials scandals (and not just democratic folks either) who have gone on to winning elections...

Jimmy Carter was clean and scandal free. we need him back