And the Running Mate Will Be?

Mag, maybe the dems would like to take credit for the troop surge on this "illegal war"?

0 Replies

Okay back on topic, I was listening to a couple of the Sunday morning news programs this morning and on both, Condoleeza Rice's name surfaced as a possible running mate for John McCain.

Condi has repeatedly said she has no intent, plans, or interest in running for public office. As she put it, it "isn't in her genes".

Others will say she has been a terrible Secretary of State and/or would make a terrible Vice President.

All that aside, if she WAS the pick for McCain, the feminists get their woman, the African Americans get at least an heir apparent to the Presidency, and the 'yet another white male' argument would be diluted.

Assuming this was feasible would it be an advantage to McCain? Or would it be seen as pandering?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

the African Americans get at least an heir apparent to the Presidency

Thanks but no thanks.
We don't want her.
But I'm afraid you may be right. Many people just don't see beyond race and it would be a calculated covering-of-the-bases, the same as Obama having to be very,very careful of his choice for running mate, for the same reasons.

0 Replies

The last I heard, Condi Rice said that her ideal job would be commissioner of the NFL.
Apparently she is a huge football fan.

0 Replies

Mrs. Clinton could possibly pick Edwards as her VP.

It may depend strictly on Mrs. Edwards health .
Surprised

0 Replies

If Obama wins, I would like to see him pick Evan Bayh (D.-IN) as his running mate.
If Hillary wins, I do think that Lieberman would be a good choice.
He has strength in the areas she is weak, and would probably draw from the conservative voters.

0 Replies

eoe wrote:

Thanks but no thanks.
We don't want her.

Who's the "WE"?
Confused

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Okay back on topic, I was listening to a couple of the Sunday morning news programs this morning and on both, Condoleeza Rice's name surfaced as a possible running mate for John McCain.

Condi has repeatedly said she has no intent, plans, or interest in running for public office. As she put it, it "isn't in her genes".

Others will say she has been a terrible Secretary of State and/or would make a terrible Vice President.

All that aside, if she WAS the pick for McCain, the feminists get their woman, the African Americans get at least an heir apparent to the Presidency, and the 'yet another white male' argument would be diluted.

Assuming this was feasible would it be an advantage to McCain? Or would it be seen as pandering?

I took a poll the other day and Condi is my number one pick. (even over Newt and Jeb)

Talk about someone being "ready on day one"! Smile

Condi is also the most educated on foreign policy.

A side note, in Islamic law, attacking a female is punishable by death.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:
But there seems to be three R's in contention there, not just two.

Haha, not suprised you'd be a Huckabee fan.

Well, not a huge fan, but he did stay in longer than Romney.

But either Huck (who never really had a realistic chance) or McCain would be far superior to the current Democratic slate.

C'mon now. Don't the Dems have anybody better than 'Present' Obama or Hilly/Billy ?

Why won't they back a moderate like Lieberman?

0 Replies

Condi being "unmarried" may uncannily even attract the gay/lesbian votes too?

Where Hillary has a conflict of interest (his name is Bill).

A few weeks ago Bill slipped and stated, "If you elect me president" the people standing behind him actually flinched. (hehe) Bill realized his mistake and did not even correct himself...

Isn't the Christian wife supposed to, "submit to her husband" also?

The funny thing is that I would vote for Condi over McCain. Smile

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

If Obama wins, I would like to see him pick Evan Bayh (D.-IN) as his running mate.
If Hillary wins, I do think that Lieberman would be a good choice.
He has strength in the areas she is weak, and would probably draw from the conservative voters.

Lieberman will never be on another national Democratic ticket.

They threw him under the bus in his Senate re-election campaign, and he kicked the bus off and stood up.

He doesn't need them, and they're too stupid to know they need him.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

I think there will be a lot of pressure on Obama (assuming that he will be the Democratic nominee) to choose a woman as his running mate. Not that the choice of a woman will help him with Republicans and independents (Obama's people probably think that their man can do that all by himself) but rather to help mend fences with Hillary Clinton's supporters. Clinton herself will likely reject any offer to run on the same ticket with Obama -- she would probably view the vice presidency as a demotion. What Obama needs, then, is a woman, preferably with executive experience, who is loyal to team Obama and who can, if possible, help in a state or region that might swing to the Democrats in November. That narrows the field pretty dramatically. Two names that remain: Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Gov. Kathleen Sebellius of Kansas. Both endorsed Obama in the primaries, both are very popular in their (red) home states, and both have the kind of executive experience that Obama lacks. Napolitano, however, is from Arizona, and it's unlikely that she'll be able to sway that state in the general election against favorite son John McCain. That leaves Sebellius.

I'm getting plenty worried anytime Joe agrees with me. :wink:

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I'm getting plenty worried anytime Joe agrees with me. :wink:

Not half as worried as me.

0 Replies

Congressman Jim Webb (D-VA) is my guess for Obama.

http://www.amarketplaceofideas.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/jim-webb.jpg

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

[
Both a wee bit weak on domestic issues??? LOL I think a more correct way to describe that would be they don't know their heads from their arses when it comes to domestic issues.

But it was perfectly legal for the UN to take bribes and oil fields from Saddam?
Perfectly legal fgor pakistan to sell nuclear weapons to Lybia, yemen and Iran and who every gave tehm the money? They also attmepted to sel tehm to Saddam but Saddam refused because he thought the US was behind the deal. Once his fears of that faded teh butcher of Baghdad would have eaisily gone nucleare. That is perfectly ok huh Mag?

Illegal war? Say that enough and you can brain wash yourself!

ANYTHING BUT LOVE AND PRIDE FOR AMERICA, right Mag? (Cynical) Is that not Michelle Obama's mantra too?

We have won the war Mag! It seems Colin Powel was wrong in this case, and so were YOU.

YOU WERE SO VERY WRONG!

Your word is no longer credible and was never credible to begin with! The US "military solution" worked! Yet that was no help from the hate America left INCLUDING YOUR (nasty) SELF emboldening the enemy and causing MORE US casualties in Iraq by siding with the ENEMY! This was all for the damned White House and your medal throwing John Kerry. Let's not forget "special interest" of the dems that trumps the American people? Let's not forget the do nothing "democratic" congress with a 22% approval rating

Now millions of people in Iraq are liberated? But screw that huh? (cynical) It was an illegal war! Your word means NOTHING! You are a traitor to this country and its people! I will never forget the 8 years of YOU and your goony friends trying to topple our war efforts with special interest (of all things). I will never intentionally vote for another "democrat" again!

We can thank, YES, Fox news for informing the American people with UNBIASED news while you were busy perpetuating the LIES? Who REALLY LIED Mag? Who is the filthy liar now? Not only ONE "possible" lie but many lies we have endured from your twisted warped SICK view of reality! WHO is the village idiot now?

Don't let the American VICTORY and George Bush's success in Iraq ruin your pity party too much! Let's hope this "illegal" war Victory does not cost the dems the congress, the senate and yes, THE WHITE HOUSE in 08! (again, cynical)

Have a good day Mag. ROTFLOL (at your pitiful expense)

Red Rex ...take my advice and go back to school to learn to read and write without mangling the English language. Once that is accomplished (may not be possible after all the repugnant brainwashing)... you might be able to read & discover that the illegal war is still going strong. Soldiers and civilians are still dying by the dozens every day.

Yes some people have been liberated........from life ...forever. And you are proud of your murdering thug who has "accomplished" all this!

Why am I not surprised by that? Speaking of pitiful Red Rex, you go way beyond that word.

It has been downright heart breaking seeing a once great country become the laughing stock of the world while you and Chicken George did your damage. You should be tried for treason along side that despicable worm.

Sorry, but I don't find anything laughable about you & that gang of thugs.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Mag, maybe the dems would like to take credit for the troop surge on this "illegal war"?

There are some damn dumb Dems in Congress but none that dumb! Sorry... Your pet idiot is stuck with that one forever!

0 Replies

Magginkat wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Mag, maybe the dems would like to take credit for the troop surge on this "illegal war"?

There are some damn dumb Dems in Congress but none that dumb! Sorry... Your pet idiot is stuck with that one forever!

Quote:

You should be tried for treason along side that despicable worm.

And you are still confused on the definition of treason, as defined by the US Constitution.
It is the ONLY crime defined in the Constitution, so I will make it easy for you.

It is Article 3, section 3 so you can find it easily.

But here it is for you...

Quote:

Section 3 - Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

And here is the Constitution for you to study...

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec2

So as you can see, if you bother to read, there is no way that you can try Bush for treason, no matter how much you want to.

0 Replies

From the always reliable Robert Novak:

Close supporters of Mitt Romney have been injecting into the political rumor stream an unsubstantiated report that Sen. John McCain obtained the vital endorsement of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist by promising him the vice presidential nomination. Spreading that rumor reflects the anger in the Romney camp over the late endorsements of McCain by Crist and Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida. Until then, the Romney insiders claim, their private polls showed a lead in the Jan. 29 Florida primary that in fact delivered a crushing victory for McCain.Of course, one must take this with a healthy dose of salt. Novak is the go-to guy for GOP slander and innuendo (see Plame, Valerie), so this is probably just a jab at Crist from a pissed-off Romney aide. Still, some other sources are taking the possibility of Crist as McCain's running mate seriously. But that merely brings up the "Question that None May Ask:"

Meanwhile, Crist needs to ask himself if he is ready for the intense scrutiny that comes with being a national candidate. He is a media darling these days, but the minute McCain gave him the nod, reporters would start fine-combing his record and his life for revealing political and personal nuggets.... As a candidate for governor, Crist, who is divorced, was the target of scurrilous rumors and personal smears in the blogosphere. In a national election, he could expect all of that garbage to be recycled and then some.Translation: "scurrilous rumors" = he's gay.

0 Replies

More likely the polls were just wrong.

Who votes for a candidate because the governor says so?

No endorsement means a thing to me, except as occasional humor.

Seriously, can anybody tell me that they have either made up their mind, or changed their mind based on an endorsement?

Ever?

If so, I'd love to hear why that made the difference. I just don't see it.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

More likely the polls were just wrong.

Who votes for a candidate because the governor says so?

No endorsement means a thing to me, except as occasional humor.

Seriously, can anybody tell me that they have either made up their mind, or changed their mind based on an endorsement?

Ever?

If so, I'd love to hear why that made the difference. I just don't see it.

I was just reading about the little spikes in support for Hillary that pollsters were trying to connect to her recent "humanizing" appearances on SNL and John Stewart's show. Seemed totally plausible to me - the idea that people would tend to like a candidate more who showed a willingness to unclench their ass cheeks and laugh at themselves every so often.

So, reading the above quote, I naturally had to give some thought to whether or not it's a truism that no one "has either made up their mind, or changed their mind based on an endorsement."

"Hmmm", I said to myself, "at first whiff, that smells like some bull excrement to me." "Has anyone given second thought to an important decision like voting for a political candidate because of someone elses' endorsement?"

Well, I think probably so. It's totally natural for people to consider other opinions, and even moreso when that second opinion comes from someone who is much liked/loved/respected. If someone's best friend dislikes or distrusts someone or something, that person or thing is more likely to become suspect. It's human nature.

Those who have been granted the mantle of "expert" on ostensibly subjective entertainments like fine foods and movies influence audiences - simply because people think they know what they are talking about.

It's not a sign of daftness or a flaw in character for someone to be marginally influenced by the opinions of some "other" opinion they hold in regard. And in cases where the advice or critiques have proved to be reliable about something in the past - even more than marginally influenced.

To declare preemptively or make the suggestion that no one "has either made up their mind, or changed their mind based on an endorsement" is in my humble opinion the height of self-important, myopic, ignorant arrogance.

And by the way, completely in character with the person who made the statement.

0 Replies

And the Running Mate Will Be?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know