<p>I always ponder on how it is that we end up with a significant conservative population in our country although the large majority of people in college are liberal-- and I mean the LARGE majority.</p>
<p>Do any of you think a candidate with the right qualifications who represented our country well (i.e. not flamboyant who does not let their homosexuality define them) could become a Democratic Presidential Candidate? In the next 20 years? 30 years? 50 years?</p>
<p>There’s a quote, often attributed to Churchill (falsely, I’m told, but I don’t know for sure)…something about how if you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart, but if you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain. Little harsh, either way, I’d say, but the idea seems fair: priorities change, perspective changes, personal situation changes. A twenty year old living in a dorm on an urban college campus is voting with a different mindset than a 40 year old mother of three living in a wealthy suburb. Neither is necessarily voting correctly or wrongly, and they might even prefer the same candidate…but they’re certainly coming at the election from very different perspectives. Of course there are young conservatives, adult liberals, low-income conservatives, upper-class liberals, people who transition from an early conservative to a later liberal mindset…but in general, an age/circumstance-based shift of belief is not unreasonable.</p>
<p>Also remember that when you’re in college, the whole nation seems more liberal than it really is. You might be constantly surrounded with the type of issues that barely make it onto the radar of most voters, while the issues that matter to many non-students play little obvious role in your daily routine. I went from a very conservative HS to a very liberal college, and all that taught me was that there are brilliant, benevolent, selfish, open- and closed-minded people on both sides of every debate, and pretty much any viewpoint can seem obvious if a talented enough person is arguing for it.</p>
<p>As to your second question…for one thing, I disagree with the suggestion that if a gay candidate does run, it could only be as a democrat.</p>
<p>It might be interesting to ask this question in the College Life forum.</p>
<p>“Do any of you think a candidate with the right qualifications who represented our country well (i.e. not flamboyant who does not let their homosexuality define them) could become a Democratic Presidential Candidate? In the next 20 years? 30 years? 50 years?”</p>
<p>If Hillary had not run such a lousy campaign, she would have been the Democrat nominee this year.</p>
<p>I hope that if there was qualified candidate in either party,we as Americans would look past their sexual orientation and vote for them.</p>
<p>Sure, why not?
[List</a> of the first LGBT holders of political offices - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_first_LGBT_holders_of_political_offices]List”>List of the first openly LGBT holders of political offices - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>I’m doubtful. Although acceptance of homosexuality has definitely increased in my lifetime, there does seem to be a pretty significant limit to its extent (as shown by what happened with votes on gay marriage in many states). I think there will continue to be many voters who will vote against such a candidate on religious grounds. It turned out in this election that American wasn’t even ready for a Mormon president, I think for similar reasons.</p>
<p>What about the theory that Lincoln was gay?
[Was</a> Lincoln Gay? - New York Times](<a href=“Was Lincoln Gay? - NYTimes.com”>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E5D61439F93AA35752C0A9639C8B63)</p>
<p>What about James Buchanan? Our only “bachelor” President. It is reported that he had a longtime gay relationship with his secretary and lived together. I think the stigma of being gay will continue to dissipate. With California’s courts providing for gay marriages, gays will continue to legitimize their lifestyle. I have friends that have worked in Washington and in politics in general and say that gays represent a fair share of the workforce. There are most likely some gays that are in Washington but have not come out. Sports, Hollywood, and Washington have men and women that keep secret their true sexual orientation.</p>
<p>Before an athiest</p>
<p>I agree Tom- I would love someone to be elected who wasn’t campaigning on how Christian he/she was.
I thought that this country was about freedom " from" religion, not just freedom " of " religion.</p>
<p>“I thought that this country was about freedom " from” religion, not just freedom " of " religion."</p>
<p>Well, you’re free to have no religion. But religious people are free to vote for candidates that share their views.</p>
<p>pafather, was that supposed to be a snarky way of suggesting that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian? Very nice. Has there ever been a “strong woman” in Democratic politics about whom there weren’t stories implying that they “must” have been “dykes”? </p>
<p>I agree that in this country, the idea of there being an openly gay or lesbian presidential candidate someday seems far less outlandish than the possibility of an atheist having a serious candidacy.</p>
<p>A transsexual/transgendered candidate? Not in the lifetime of anyone alive today, I think.</p>
<p>Donna</p>
<p>PS: from everything I know, the case for Buchanan’s having been gay is pretty convincing. Lincoln? Not the least bit convincing.</p>
<p>I’m sure we have had plenty of atheist Presidents. Just none that came out of the atheist closet.</p>
<p>Hunt, I understand your pt, but EK also has a pt.</p>
<p>I vote primarily Republican on the basis of taxes and against NH care…lived for @3yrs on a Natioonalized Health System and it was frightening. </p>
<p>However, I would NEVER, EVER vote for a candidate who espouses Religious beliefs upon me! (unfortunately the republican party spends too much time courting the Religious Right and assuring them that they will protect their beliefs. I am Catholic, I do not believe in late term abortion and I would not ever support any candidate who would allow it, I do understand someone having an abortion in the 1st term, and do not believe that my view negates their medical right…this may seem 2 faced, but a late term is medically viable, a 6 wk pregnancy is not. I also agree about our current stem cell policy…reality is it didn’t stop private research, we just said it won’t be on a the federal dime.</p>
<p>NOW back to the OP…I do not understand how voters believe in marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, is a federal issue. I am totally opposed to a constitutional amendment. I also cannot understand what the hoopla is about…to me what is the big deal…it is a civil union and all anyone is asking for is to not to be discriminated based on their private life. My G*dmother lost her partner of 27 yrs the day before NJ passed civil unions…they were very in love and committed to ea other, however, her partners’ children had the rt to give medical direction over her.
I must admit being from NJ (GOV had to resign over homosexual issues)…my ownly issue w/him was he hid it and for that I have absolutely no respect in addition to the fact that he used the system for his lover…I feel the same way about anyone who uses the system.</p>
<p>I agree with Tom, I could not vote for an atheist. It has nothing to do with his religious beliefs or lack there of, I just personally believe that an Atheist sees things to black/white and clear cut, unfortunately politics is a very grey, shade especially when we are dealing with Iranian, Palestinians, and Israelis. If you cannot comprehend/accept that religious beliefs are the force behind them, than how do you find a common ground.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>A lot of people don’t go to college or just go a year or two.</p>
<p>People are often more liberal when their pocketbook isn’t involved directly.</p>
<p>Don’t think that we’ll see an openly gay president in my lifetime. But then I didn’t think that I’d see the fall of the Berlin Wall in my lifetime. I was pleasantly surprised/shocked.</p>
<p>In thinking about this, I guess I can imagine a successful gay candidate. But he’d have to have some unusual characteristics. It would be good if he was a decorated combat veteran, who only came out of the closet, even to himself, after his honorable discharge, and who wasn’t married and had no children. It would probably help if he came out at least 10 years ago, and had a single partner, who is now dead (but not from AIDS). He would have to come along at a time when the opposing party is coming to the end of a disastrous presidency. I think he’d have to be a Democrat for the foreseeable future. If he were a Republican, I think he’d suffer the fate of Giuliani.</p>
<p>Edited to add: After reading my own post, I think it’s pretty obvious that something similar is in the works to potentially give us the first black President. Obama is black enough, but not too black–he doesn’t come out of the civil rights movement–he doesn’t focus much on race in his rhetoric–and he is coming along at a time when the opposing party is coming to the end of a disastrous presidency.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You hit the mark!</p>
<p>I have been slammed by many posters about my anti-universal health care, b/c I am openly willing to admit that I am unwilling to pay an additional 44% in fed taxes to support it. It is wonderful to live in Utopia, but the reality is by paying the aditional 44% pm, that is my food bill+ for the mo. The proposal (Hills 5k a yr pd into regardless if you are insured = 400/mo) How will the person working 2 jobs living paycheck to paycheck afford that? </p>
<p>I remember Mondale/Ferraro, although we will never know what could have been accomplished, I hope that we will see someone strong enough to take that chance again. </p>
<p>IF I had my dream candidate it would have been COLIN POWELL…he truly has everything, Secretary of State, 4 Star Gen., intelligent, etc…I only hope that he runs in 12! If that can’t happen I truly want a 3rd party candidate who is not beholdent(sp?) to their party, but to us.</p>
<p>I will say it again, as far as the Senate and House I am voting for anyone who is not an incumbent…I am at the pt., that I believe if we get rid of the old guard we will be in a better situation…yes, I know they will run around like chickens for the 1st yr, but at least they would be doing something more than going on junkets, and fundraisers! I only wish I was from MA to get rid of Teddy, John and Patrick! (I do hope Teddy gets healthy, but it is time for him to go!..even McCain made fun of himself this weekend on SNL about the amt of time he has been in DC)…add Murtha, Byrd, Biden, Snowe and Dodd (they all have been there since I care to remember)</p>
<p>In regards to atheist in the White House it gets down to semantics. Our founding fathers had many deists among them including Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin. Although Deist may believe in a creator that set things in motion they do not believe a God that micromanages our lives. Unitarians are deists. I think that the a Unitarian would be elected (Thomas Jeffeson) but someone who stated bluntly that he or she was an atheist would not. 80% of all phd’s in Science consider themselves atheist/agnostic(atheist lite), or deists.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>What??? You’re kidding, right?</p>
<p>While atheists don’t believe in the existence of God, they all do acknowledge the existence of religion. Most will agree that religion is a very big part of the human existence. Some atheists are hostile towards religion but others (myself included) feel that religion has been a very positive influence in human history and continues, on balance, to be good for humankind.</p>
<p>In my view it is the religious extremists who see things in black and white and fail to see shades of grey. Just listen to the Iranian Ayatollahs, Israeli Zionists or the extreme televangelists. They all feel that their own version of the truth is correct and everyone else is wrong. George Bush also suffers from this mindset.</p>
<p>When you are trying to find common ground between mutually exclusive religious groups, it can only help to have an atheist be the neutral mediator. </p>
<p>Atheism is not a personal choice. You cannot will yourself to believe in God. You either do or you don’t. I don’t because I can’t.</p>
<p>EDIT: I apologize for the off-topic response. I guess the main thread is about an openly gay President and I think it is not as far away as most people would think. Certainly in the next 40 years or so (so hopefully in my lifetime).</p>
<p>I confess I have more trouble building the successful atheist candidate than the gay candidate. I guess he might win if the other party nominates a Muslim.</p>