Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Kris_LTRMa, Feb 14, 2008.
I figured he would endorse McCain - party unity & all that. Sooo, why am I disappointed?
Romney is positioning himself for the VP spot. Huckabee is rapidly getting into the "too much animosity to be the VP" range.
It's really simple, from the GOP perspective: McCain is a fiscal conservative, and a social I-don't-really-give-a-fuck. He pipes up now and than about stuff like MMA (which, frankly, needed some cleaning up when he first got on the bandwagon against it), but his record is that he really doesn't care that much about the bullshit social issues.
Make the economy run (as best as any President can, which isn't much), keep us safe, and then leave us the fuck alone.
Works for me.
The Democrats couldn't ask for a better gift than Mittens as the VP candidate.
I disagree. You're thinking of Huckabee.
I agree with this. I'd much rather see Romney as VP.
I'd rather see him as President but will settle for him as VP.
This might actually be the way to go - most conservatives are still not convinced that McCain is one of "them". Putting Romney on the ballot might make voting for McCain a little more palatable.
I would rather see Romney as President too but I guess the party thinks they need name recognition to defeat Barack Hussein. The fact that McCain was briefly considered as a running mate for John Kerry shows how desperate they think we are.
If Romney is VP, then considering McCain's age, maybe Romney'll be President after all.
This is a good thing... Make nice.. Let Hillary and Obama continue to beat on each other... Hopefully Huckabee will realize he's done soon as well.
I'm sorry, you're a bit unclear: who was/is desperate? The GOP for choosing McCain, or the DNC for considering McCain?
I think the latter makes more sense: Even when the DNC should have had GOP on the run, they were considering a Republican as the DNC running mate.
McCain does come across a little weird, though. He's not a fire-and-brimstone politician, where he's calling his opponent the devil. He's not a "hope" preacher posing as a politician like Obama (turn the TV on to a CW/independent broadcast channel Sunday mornings, and you'll see a dozen Obamas at the pulpit). He's quiet, he's polite even when he's disagreeing with someone. It's weird.
I'll admit it: in the past I got the "this guy is ready to explode and rip the other guy's heart out" feeling from him. He's got a reputation for having a temper. On the other hand, I have a really good buddy who was a doorman for the Senate from 2002-2003. Mark's one of the funniest guys I know, and he says that McCain had a GREAT sense of humor and never treated the "staff" as garbage, unlike some other senators. Take that for what you will.
Mark never said anything about Hillary and considering he's a pretty hard-core Democrat (he's gay: he kind of has to be...) and he didn't say anything nice about her, well, figure things out yourself.
He'd left for law school by the time Obama got there.
Nope. Huckabee has shown that he can get the evangelicals to vote for him - Romney hasn't. If you look at the turnout in the primary season so far, voter enthusiasm is already way in favor of the Democrats and by adding Romney to the ticket it's almost a lock that more of the GOP base will stay home. Add to this the fact that an average junior high student could put together a devastating ad showing Romney's numerous flip flops and/or his pathetic record as Govenor and you don't gain any leverage in the swing states either. So again, I wouldn't like it if Romney was the VP nominee...I"D LOVE IT!!!
If Romney ever became president, Like Ant said, I will have to brush up on "O Canada"...
Voter enthusiasm only favors the DNC if Obama gets the nomination. And then, his race WILL be a factor in driving some away from the "big tent". Maybe more than he gains with his "movement" and maybe less.
If Hillary gets the nomination, all the dreamy-eyed Obama supporters will melt away. I don't care HOW strongly Obama endorses Hillary in that scenario, unless he's the VP candidate his soft support won't go to Hillary. And if the DNC wants to run a woman with a black man as her VP candidate, that'd be a work of beauty.
I'm sorry, but the DNC just doesn't have any leadership worth the name. If the DNC had made getting white men elected as governors in the Deep South on Jan. 21st, 2001, and been SMART about it icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol, they would have been able to have 2-3 Deep South governors as major candidates this time last year instead of the 0 they had.
SENATORS ARE WHORES!!!!!!!!!! That's their job! What killed Kerry? The "I voted for that bill, but then I voted against it" quote was a big hit. But that's what a Senator DOES. You go one way in committee, you go another way on the floor of the Senate. You're in DC, but you skip on a voting session because someone who's voting the other way on the bill has to rush to the hospital to see to his sick daughter and you staying away from the vote (so his absence doesn't affect the vote on the bill) is a common courtesy paid to your Senate colleagues.
GOVERNORS are executives. They're in charge. They may fuck up, they may be brilliant, but they have LEADERSHIP experience.
Ok, McCain was a hell of a leader. He kept his fellow POWs together at the Hanoi Hilton. He's the senior Senator from Arizona, and has often gone his own way when he thought it was right. LEADER.
What's Hillary's leadership experience? I mean, really? She was a partner at a law firm, the first lady of Arkansas, the first lady of the United States, and the junior Senator from New York. She's a Clinton. When you want to know what her priority issues are, look at the latest poll numbers. Where does any of that say "leader"?
What's Obama's leadership experience? He's been a community activist (oooooooohhh!) and ran his college law review (granted, it was the HARVARD law review, but still). He's the junior Senator from Illinois. His three major issues (insomuch as he HAS issues) are energy independence, pulling out of Iraq, and socialized health care. In other words, the 3 major points straight out of the DNC party platform. In his 4 years in the Senate, he's been a bigger party-line voter than the Democratic Senate Majority Leader! Where does any of that say "leader"?
That is one of the best posts I've read on here in a long time.
You left out a crucial aspect of leadership - the ability to inspire and motivate. Obama has shown this skill week after week in the campaign. McCain not so much. There may be some anti-black backlash, but it's not going to be as stong as the anti-Bush backlash the GOP is going to face. All bets are off if it's Hillary though, she is even less inspiring than McCain and her negatives are much higher.
Slow down. We don't want someone who appeals to evangelicals and the evangelicals will vote for whoever Republicans tell them to. Their hatred of democrats and minorities will more than overcome voter apathy.
I'm far more worried about appealing to the middle, which is why McCain may have been the best choice. Romney and Huckabee are complete shitdicks.
Well, you see, it's a difference of points of view.
Bleeding heart liberals find Barrack inspiring because they so rarely enter a church that when they're preached to as if they were in a church, it hits home.
Not to mention they don't find this sort of thing inspiring:
Nope. It's a LOT more inspiring to listen to a guy babble and not give any specifics. It's a LOT better to vote for a guy who promises you everything you want (never mind that at least 66% of his "core issues" are beyond retarded) without telling you HOW he's going to give it to you, isn't it?
And independents / moderates are MAJORLY turned off by Huckabee and his evangelical-pandering schtick. Outside of the evangelicals, no one takes a candidate seriously who, say, refuses to acknowledge the existence of evolution.
Also, there's a SIZABLE majority of conservative voters out there that do NOT like Huckabee. They dislike McCain more, but that's not saying much. Many of Huckabee's stances while he was governor are considered far too liberal for many conservatives.
Right on the former, dead wrong on the latter. You must not have been paying attention towards the end of the GOP primaries, where the conservative wing of the party pretty did a full-court press in SUPPORT of Romney. Not that they didn't have issues with him, but they found him to be, by far, the "most conservative" of the candidates who remained. A McCain / Huckabee ticket would not inspire more of the base to support the GOP ticket than would a McCain / Romney ticket.
But I think that's probably all rather pointless anyway, since I've got the feeling McCain will pick neither of them. He doesn't need Huckabee anymore now that Romney's out and supporting him, and there's probably too much bad blood there between him and Romney (and it's likely to Mitt's advantage for him to sit on the sidelines for now, because if McCain loses, Romney has the best shot of getting the 2012 nomination, provided he wine and dine the base in the next 4 years).
Romney's not perfect, he definitely has issues.
And yet, however conflicted his record may be, it still dwarfs that of Obama, who's pretty much had no major accomplishments in his political career. Not compared to McCain, not compared to Romney.....hell, not even compared to Huckabee.
Excellent point. It's been said before, but Obama is running on a cult of personality. Furthermore, he's a complete cipher, in the sense that he has no accomplishments to point to (as I alluded to earlier), and you're basing everything upon what he SAYS he's going to do (and hey, politicians are ALWAYS truthful, right?), rather than being able to point to anything specific. Well, you can, actually, because as VMS pointed, his voting record indicates that he's one of, if not THE, most liberal senator in Congress, so this "uniter" bullshit should rightfully go right out of the window, because one thing is for certain, if Obama is in there, he's not going to do jack shit to "heal" this political divide, he's just going to advance a liberal, left-wing agenda.
And since you seem to be something of that sort, BD, maybe THAT is inspirational to you, but Obama's values are not the values of most Americans, and VMS is right that once Obama finally has to start answering for shit, some of that rosy glow around his halo is going to dim and fade.
I really don't care who's got a better sense of humor. If I want to be entertained, I'll watch Lucky Louie or any other myriad of things that are meant to be entertaining. I'm not electing a president based on his or her sense of humor or how well they treat their staffs. That's between them & the staff to deal with.
Show me what you're going to do for this country - the economy, illegal immigrants, the war etc & don't bullshit me. Even if you do, I'm going to try to read between the bullshit lines and that's how I'm going to decide whether or not you're the best man (or woman) for the job.
I get that. But the presidency isn't a technical job. It's not like you're an engineer and the only thing that really should matter is whether you can design the right widget for the job or not. 99% of the presidency is about PEOPLE. Not customer service type people work, but actually working with people.
Assholes who treat their own people like shit typically don't get along with other people all that well. That means they're much less likely to be able to do a job that requires them to get along with people and to lead people.
I stand by my original statement - I'm not electing someone to be entertained. And whether or not they're nice to their staff isn't my concern either. That doesn't mean they can't work with those who really matter. The present idiot in office supposedly was "nice" to his staff - and was elected because people thought he would be more "fun" at a bar-b-que than Gore or Kerry and he's gotten nothing done, so apparently plays well with others doesn't mean too much in Washington.
I get what you're saying, but I'm going to disagree and say that yes, to some extent, is IS a technical job, in the sense that you have to have some real skill and talent and experience, rather than just being good with people.
Because otherwise, that would make BloodyDiaper's argument that Obama should be president purely because he's fucking charismatic and inspirational seem rational. And it's so clearly not.
If the only choices in November come down to a ticket with a guy whose name sounds like a terrorist against a ticket with a Mormon on it, it's time to push the button and just start the big one.
Clever, but you ignore the fact that a significant population the huge turnout inspired by Obama includes religious independents and moderates - AKA swing voters who normally sit out the primaries.
Well yes, that's why they are called campaign speeches instead of policy papers. The purpose of the former is to arouse interest in the candidate and highlight his ideas and the purpose of the latter is to provide the details. And if lack of specifics and vagueness are political liabilities, then Obama is lucky to have McCain as his opponent since the very senior senator is not known for exactly being a policy wonk.
How'd that work out for Romney?
The only elected office Romney ever held was Governor of MA for 1 term - half of which he spent out of state scouting his presidential prospects. When he was there he didn't do shit except take credit for the deficit reduction caused by the tax increases his predecessor put in place. That's some scary political career - better start carving him into Mt. Rushmore.
A multi-decade study by the Pew Research Center on "Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007" shows that there are long term trends towards majority and supermajority public support for key left/liberal positions.
69% of Americans now believe that government has a responsibility "to take care of people who can't take care of themselves"
69% say the government should guarantee "every citizen enough to eat and a place to sleep"
54% say, "The government should help more needy people even if it means going deeper in debt"
66% favor "the government guaranteeing health insurance for all citizens, even if it means raising taxes."
76% believe that "too much power is concentrated in the hands of a few corporations"
68% believe "labor unions are necessary to protect the working person"
83% of the public supports stricter laws and regulations to protect the environment
69% of the public endorses the position that “we should put more emphasis on fuel conservation than on developing new oil supplies.”
60% would "be willing to pay higher prices in order to protect the environment"
59% favor "allowing undocumented immigrants who have been here a few years to gain legal status with the possibility of American citizenship"
Don't be dishonest - I've never made that argument. I said those are crucial aspects of leadership, but I've never argued that they are reason enough in and of themselves to be president.
Con men have that same ability...