Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: mupcat
It's not a matter of deciding for "women" per se, but some positions seem better suited to certain personalities, and have nothing at all to do with gender...

Okay...if true, you could name two male candidates for whom you've decided their 'appropriate role.'

125 posted on 11/29/2010 9:13:15 PM PST by gogeo ("Every one has a right to be an idiot. He abuses the privilege!" Groucho Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies ]


To: gogeo
you could name two male candidates for whom you've decided their 'appropriate role.

You betcha! Course we really don't know who's running, but suppose it's Huckabee---that's one I don't think of as presidential. Much better suited to a religious calling, or he hasn't done that badly with his FOX show. Then there's Newt Gingrich? Don't see him in that position either. Much better in a scholastic environment, plus his negatives are very high.

There are just some things about S.P. that, on the surface, seem very petty, but they are nontheless things that I don't view as presidential. Bottom line, IMO, it's just going to be more difficult for a woman, no matter who she is, to become president, and heaven knows, we can't do this alone---it's going to take a large portion of voters outside of our party, and I'm not sure that's possible.

128 posted on 11/30/2010 5:02:41 PM PST by mupcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson