Okie,
I absolutely agree that we need to have a solid V.P. on the ticket. Personally I favor Kay Bailey Hutchison, one of the Texas Senators.
* She has a strong constituency in Texas, and among the Hispanic community. Winning the Texas Electoral vote is important, and Sen. Hutchionson's coat tails may carry over to other Soutwestern States, and Oklahoma.
* She may appeal to disappointed and alienated women supporters of Hillary Clinton, and draw more cross-over votes away from the presumptive Democratic candidate, Obama. Sen. Hutchinson has shown that she is effective on the campaign trail.
* McCain, I believe, will appeal to many older voters (one of the most important voting blocks), and Sen. Hutchinson's relative youth will be insurance against any health failure on McCain's part.
* Sen. Hutchinson has served multiple terms in the Texas legislature and the Senate where she is very highly regarded. In short, she is familiar and experienced in the political arena.
* Her voting record is sound, and should appeal to many of those conservatives who harbor some doubts about McCain's occasional absence from the reservation.
* She has a sound conservative record as a foundation, but she isn't yet well-known nationally. That might be a drawback, but on the other hand, she isn't instantly vulnerable on some hot-key issues.
In the end, McCain will make the decision, but I doubt he could do much better than Texas Senator Kathy Bains Hutchinson.
Foxfyre wrote:
By contrast, what sort of people do you think Obama and Clinton would surround themselves with in order to govern? Bill Clinton made some qustionable choices there, but all Presidents have. Overall, he didn't do that badly. Bush too made some really good picks and some that I bet he would like to have a do-over now.
I am extremely pessimistic about both of them. Under Clinton, we would get more of the same losers we had under Bill, mostly to protect her and to sweep dirt under the rug. Remember Janet Reno, it would be more of that. In regard to Obama, it is really difficult to tell. His defense speech in 2007 indicated he wanted to return to policies similar to FDR, Truman, and JFK, and to "rebuild the military," so when I read that, I was incredulous and I don't believe that for a minute, and therefore do not know what to expect. I would look for us to pull the rug out from under Israel big time and I would look for negotiations with terrorist groups and rogue dictators to be the rule of the day. I think Obama would be a pushover and could cause even greater harm than another Clinton administration on the world stage, and would further erode any influence we may have on all kinds of policies. Also look for more feel good environmental initiatives that accomplish little except to hurt us both short term and long term, economically and otherwise.
Asherman wrote:Okie,
I absolutely agree that we need to have a solid V.P. on the ticket. Personally I favor Kay Bailey Hutchison, one of the Texas Senators.
* She has a strong constituency in Texas, and among the Hispanic community. Winning the Texas Electoral vote is important, and Sen. Hutchionson's coat tails may carry over to other Soutwestern States, and Oklahoma.
* She may appeal to disappointed and alienated women supporters of Hillary Clinton, and draw more cross-over votes away from the presumptive Democratic candidate, Obama. Sen. Hutchinson has shown that she is effective on the campaign trail.
* McCain, I believe, will appeal to many older voters (one of the most important voting blocks), and Sen. Hutchinson's relative youth will be insurance against any health failure on McCain's part.
* Sen. Hutchinson has served multiple terms in the Texas legislature and the Senate where she is very highly regarded. In short, she is familiar and experienced in the political arena.
* Her voting record is sound, and should appeal to many of those conservatives who harbor some doubts about McCain's occasional absence from the reservation.
* She has a sound conservative record as a foundation, but she isn't yet well-known nationally. That might be a drawback, but on the other hand, she isn't instantly vulnerable on some hot-key issues.
In the end, McCain will make the decision, but I doubt he could do much better than Texas Senator Kathy Bains Hutchinson.
Interesting concept. I hadn't thought about Senator Hutchinson. Somebody on another thread suggested Sarah Palin, the popular governor of Alaska, for many of the same reasons you like Hutchinson. I have often thought that Condi Rice would help bridge both the 'rich white guy' syndrome and the gender gap, but she may be too tainted with the anti-Bush syndrome plus she has repeatedly said she has no interest in running for any public office; that it just isn't in her DNA.
The smart money of course is on Mitt Romney, and practically speaking, that makes a whole lot of sense. But it sure won't do anything to assuage the 'rich white guy' syndrome or the gender gap.
okie wrote:Foxfyre wrote:
By contrast, what sort of people do you think Obama and Clinton would surround themselves with in order to govern? Bill Clinton made some qustionable choices there, but all Presidents have. Overall, he didn't do that badly. Bush too made some really good picks and some that I bet he would like to have a do-over now.
I am extremely pessimistic about both of them. Under Clinton, we would get more of the same losers we had under Bill, mostly to protect her and to sweep dirt under the rug. Remember Janet Reno, it would be more of that. In regard to Obama, it is really difficult to tell. His defense speech in 2007 indicated he wanted to return to policies similar to FDR, Truman, and JFK, and to "rebuild the military," so when I read that, I was incredulous and I don't believe that for a minute, and therefore do not know what to expect. I would look for us to pull the rug out from under Israel big time and I would look for negotiations with terrorist groups and rogue dictators to be the rule of the day. I think Obama would be a pushover and could cause even greater harm than another Clinton administration on the world stage, and would further erode any influence we may have on all kinds of policies. Also look for more feel good environmental initiatives that accomplish little except to hurt us both short term and long term, economically and otherwise.
Me too. But as Bill Clinton wanted to be loved and appreciated more than he held any conviction about much of anything, I think Hillary might actually be Clinton #2 on that front which would make her possibly more responsive to sensible proposals than would somebody with a strongly held ideology.
Asherman wrote:Okie,
I absolutely agree that we need to have a solid V.P. on the ticket. Personally I favor Kay Bailey Hutchison, one of the Texas Senators.
....
Interesting pick. I do think she is somewhat well known nationally among conservatives. I have been aware of her general favorability in the Republican party, but not real familiar with the details on her and her voting record, etc.
I do think that the pick needs to be not only a person that can draw votes in strategic ways, but this time we need somebody that everyone thinks is very capable in every way and has the proper disposition, and is willing and ready to be president if needed. Of course that is always the case, but especially in this case. Also, if McCain is one term, the vp choice needs to have the capability and readiness to be a very viable candidate for president in 2012. In that regard, Romney has shown his grasp of all issues and has already demonstrated his ability to govern, and he has demonstrated his desire and preparation to be president. In this regard, the wisdom of turning to a governor or someone with management experience makes sense, whether it is Romney or someone else. Not that a legislator doesn't have the ability, but they have yet to demonstrate it. It is assured that a senator will be elected in 2008, but that is the exception, not the rule.
So in context with what I just said, would a Kay Bailey Hutchison want to be president if needed, and would she run in 2012 with gusto? I don't know the answer to those questions, but I think they are important for any vp possibility.
I believe that Sen. Hutchinson would make an outstanding President if McCain should be unable to finish a term, and why not a GOP woman at the top of the ticket in 2012? She's far better prepared to be President than either of the two Democrats currently battling it out. The more I learn of Sen. Hutchinson, the more impressed with her I am.
I believe most of the Party would go for a Romney as No. 2, but I don't think it is a good idea. First, I don't believe that Romney and McCain would find it easy to work with one another, and that will be important in the new administration. Second, while Romney would bring some strength to the ticket, he would also be brining a lot of baggage from the Primaries. Three, Romney, I don't think has enough appeal to moderate Democrats. I think there will be a large number of Democrats who would rather eat dirt than vote for whichever candidate finally ends up with the nomination. They will be looking, I think for some tiny justification for voting Republican and a woman or minority VP might just swing more punch.
On the other hand, Romney might be a very useful asset in Rust Belt States and would certainly balance the ticket geographically. Even though the Left-wing Democrats seem to have another suicidal ticket in mind, we will need to do everything possible to win this campaign. Having either Obama or Clinton steering the ship of state is a very scary thought.
Asherman wrote:Okie,
I absolutely agree that we need to have a solid V.P. on the ticket.
You need a heckuva lot more than that!
Asherman wrote:I believe that Sen. Hutchinson would make an outstanding President if McCain should be unable to finish a term.
Agreed. Alzheimer's is often a rapidly debilitating disease.
McCain guru linked to subprime crisis
By LISA LERER | 3/28/08 2:06 PM EST
Phil Gramm and John McCain
Phil Gramm stood by John McCain in his worst days last summer when his campaign went broke and his candidacy was all but written off by political observers.
Photo: AP
The general co-chairman of John McCain's presidential campaign, former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), led the charge in 1999 to repeal a Depression-era banking regulation law that Democrat Barack Obama claimed on Thursday contributed significantly to today's economic turmoil.
"A regulatory structure set up for banks in the 1930s needed to change because the nature of business had changed," the Illinois senator running for president said in a New York economic speech. "But by the time [it] was repealed in 1999, the $300 million lobbying effort that drove deregulation was more about facilitating mergers than creating an efficient regulatory framework."
Gramm's role in the swift and dramatic recent restructuring of the nation's investment houses and practices didn't stop there.
A year after the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed the old regulations, Swiss Bank UBS gobbled up brokerage house Paine Weber. Two years later, Gramm settled in as a vice chairman of UBS's new investment banking arm.
Later, he became a major player in its government affairs operation. According to federal lobbying disclosure records, Gramm lobbied Congress, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department about banking and mortgage issues in 2005 and 2006.
During those years, the mortgage industry pressed Congress to roll back strong state rules that sought to stem the rise of predatory tactics used by lenders and brokers to place homeowners in high-cost mortgages.
For his work, Gramm and two other lobbyists collected $750,000 in fees from UBS's American subsidiary. In the past year, UBS has written down more than $18 billion in exposure to subprime loans and other risky securities and is considering cutting as many as 8,000 jobs.
Gramm did not respond to an e-mail and was unavailable for comment, according to a UBS spokesman. The bank has no official position on the subprime crisis, the spokesman said, but is a member of the Financial Services Roundtable and other industry groups that are actively lobbying Congress on the issue.
Now, some housing experts and economists see Gramm's thinking in the recent housing proposal from McCain, the Republican Party's presumed presidential nominee. Gramm is often a surrogate for the Arizona senator, particularly in meetings focused on the economy. And McCain has hinted he'd consider the former Texas senator for Treasury secretary in a McCain administration.
McCain delivered an economic speech Tuesday that had Gramm's input, but it was written by domestic policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin.
"Sen. Gramm was one of dozens of folks whom Sen. McCain has consulted on the housing issue, including Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman from eBay," said McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers. "They've been friends for years, and he values Sen. Gramm's advice."
In the speech, McCain rejected the type of aggressive government intervention in the economic meltdown that has been embraced by his Democratic opponents - and even some Bush advisers.
"I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers," McCain said. "Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy."
McCain's campaign later clarified that he would support programs for "deserving" homeowners and reforms that would improve transparency and accountability in capital markets.
Andrew Jakabovics, a housing expert at the liberal Center for American Progress, said McCain's interpretation of the crisis puts little blame on investment banks for their role in packaging the subprime loans into dangerously complex and ultimately hard-to-value financial instruments.
"I'd characterize this as the deux ex machina theory of financial products," Jakabovics said. "He views this as a market problem that manifests at the local level as housing, meaning he's more likely to argue in favor of these guys when they argue for deregulation."
Wall Street firms are increasingly under scrutiny for contributing to the economic downturn by packaging and selling risky mortgage securities. When the home loans tied to the mortgages defaulted, investors and the banks lost billions, contributing to a widespread credit crunch.
"I think [McCain's] attitude is the market can basically handle this and government doesn't need to be heavily involved," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard and Poor's.
McCain and Gramm have a long political history. The two became close when they worked together as senators to defeat Hillary Rodham Clinton's 1993 health care plan, holding meetings at hospitals and clinics across the country.
In 1996, McCain was national chairman of Gramm's unsuccessful presidential bid.
In 2000, the duo had a rare parting when Gramm backed his home-state governor, George W. Bush, for president instead of McCain. But they've reunited in this presidential race.
Gramm stood by his former Senate colleague in his worst days last summer when his campaign went broke and his candidacy was all but written off by political observers.
Gramm, who had joined the campaign in March as a domestic policy adviser, was among those who helped cut staff and shrink the budgets. He traveled with McCain in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and stumped for him in Georgia.
Staff writer Victoria McGrane contributed to this story.
So, Roxxxanne, referring to the article you posted, would you say that a person's close friendships and associations are an important issue in a campaign? That a person's advisors and personal relationships should be taken into serious consideration when we choose who to elect President?
I think a conservative principle might be that character does count and that there is room to at least consider the company that people keep when assessing that.
You are missing the point Fox.
T
K
O
So enlighten me. What point did I miss? And how is my question to Roxxxanne not relative?
It's plenty relative, don't get me wrong. The point is that if we are to judge one candidate by the company he keeps, then we must do the same for all candidates.
Wright's statements don't pose any practical threat. That is to say, if Obama had some radical agenda, it would have manifested itself already in his past voting record.
Gramm's practices however do pose a practical threat.
If who you keep in company and their agenda is worth inspection, it is only relavant if the candidate has validated the radical ideas by using his or her office to promote that said agenda.
Question: "What are you affraid Obama will do?"
T
K
O
You are wasting your time, TKO. Like many conservatives, Foxfyre cannot grasp nuance.
Roxxxanne wrote:You are wasting your time, TKO. Like many conservatives, Foxfyre cannot grasp nuance.
Are you claiming that you, yourself, are nuanced, in any way or to any degree?
Diest TKO wrote:It's plenty relative, don't get me wrong. The point is that if we are to judge one candidate by the company he keeps, then we must do the same for all candidates.
Wright's statements don't pose any practical threat. That is to say, if Obama had some radical agenda, it would have manifested itself already in his past voting record.
Gramm's practices however do pose a practical threat.
If who you keep in company and their agenda is worth inspection, it is only relavant if the candidate has validated the radical ideas by using his or her office to promote that said agenda.
Question: "What are you affraid Obama will do?"
T
K
O
How do Gramm's practices pose a practical threat? What power does Gramm have? I didn't realize he currently held any elected or appointed office or had any enforceable influence on policy decisions anywhere.
So the only issue could be whether, good or bad, McCain could be expected to share Gramm's opinions or whether McCain would likely be influenced by Gramm's perspective on whatever.
So do you think Gramm, as a friend and supporter of and advisor to McCain, should be an issue? If so why?
And if you do, then why would not friends and supporters of and advisors to Obama or anybody else running for elected office not also be an issue?
(As to your question re what Obama might do, my fear is that that he would push a liberal agenda and sign liberal bills and make liberal appointments that I do not think would be good for the country. I thought that long before I knew there was a Jeremiah Wright, however.)
Foxfyre wrote:So, Roxxxanne, referring to the article you posted, would you say that a person's close friendships and associations are an important issue in a campaign? That a person's advisors and personal relationships should be taken into serious consideration when we choose who to elect President?
I think a conservative principle might be that character does count and that there is room to at least consider the company that people keep when assessing that.
The ridiculous implication (Foxfyre rarely communicates any thoughts directly, it is always implications) is that Barack Obama's
character should be questioned based on a few soundbites pulled out of hours and hours of speeches which attempt to demonize a respected pastor.
First, the image created by the right of Rev Wright is false. Secondly, Barack Obama explained the relationship and denounced the stuff Wright said in the few soundbites. The relationship between McCain and Gramm is an entirely different matter and has to be examined on its own merit.
Roxxxanne wrote:Foxfyre wrote:So, Roxxxanne, referring to the article you posted, would you say that a person's close friendships and associations are an important issue in a campaign? That a person's advisors and personal relationships should be taken into serious consideration when we choose who to elect President?
I think a conservative principle might be that character does count and that there is room to at least consider the company that people keep when assessing that.
The ridiculous implication (Foxfyre rarely communicates any thoughts directly, it is always implications) is that Barack Obama's
character should be questioned based on a few soundbites pulled out of hours and hours of speeches which attempt to demonize a respected pastor.
First, the image created by the right of Rev Wright is false. Secondly, Barack Obama explained the relationship and denounced the stuff Wright said in the few soundbites. The relationship between McCain and Graham is an entirely different matter and has to be examined on its own merit.
I agree that McCain and Gramm -- at least spell the fella's name right -- are a different issue than Obama and Wright and each should be examined on its own merit.
The implication you seem to be drawing with the article you posted, however, is that the relationship matters. So how does it matter with McCain and not for Obama?
It's a reasonable question. Take your time. I'll wait.
(Pertinance to the topic goes back to No. 4 on the list: the universality of conservative principles.)
McCain guru linked to subprime crisis
By LISA LERER | 3/28/08 2:06 PM EST
Phil Gramm and John McCain
Phil Gramm stood by John McCain in his worst days last summer when his campaign went broke and his candidacy was all but written off by political observers.
During those years, the mortgage industry pressed Congress to roll back strong state rules that sought to stem the rise of predatory tactics used by lenders and brokers to place homeowners in high-cost mortgages.
For his work, Gramm and two other lobbyists collected $750,000 in fees from UBS's American subsidiary. In the past year, UBS has written down more than $18 billion in exposure to subprime loans and other risky securities and is considering cutting as many as 8,000 jobs.
Gramm did not respond to an e-mail and was unavailable for comment...
Gramm is often a surrogate for the Arizona senator, particularly in meetings focused on the economy. And McCain has hinted he'd consider the former Texas senator for Treasury secretary in a McCain administration.
