Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 42
  1.    #1  
    Choosing a Vice President is going to be one of the first big decisions each candidate at the top of their ticket is going to have to make. Sometimes it is someone they can work well with and has a similar perspective on issues. But often times they don't even get along that well, but the VP is chosen because they will be able to draw in whole new groups of demographics of voters. For example, Reagan and Bush Sr is a perfect example of this.

    So the question is who would you pick for the VP for the following candidates and why do you think that is the best choice?

    John McCain

    Hillary Clinton

    Barack Obama
  2. #2  
    Hillary may offer it to Barack; but I cannot see Barack offering it to Hillary. There seems though to be an abundance of lawyers who have done nothing else in their lives.

    John McCain - Rice, Powell, Romney.
  3. #3  
    What difference would it make? None of them could pick a veep that would affect their chances of getting elected.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Hillary may offer it to Barack; but I cannot see Barack offering it to Hillary. There seems though to be an abundance of lawyers who have done nothing else in their lives.

    John McCain - Rice, Powell, Romney.
    those are good guesses.

    Hillary would have to offer it to Barrack -- he would likely decline.

    He would almost never offer it to her.

    On paper Rice (that would be rice paper, btw) would be McCain's perfect choice.

    A woman who's had a varied and extraordinary career: concert pianist, professor of Russian studies, Dean at Stanford, National Security adviser, Sec. of State... And her gender and ethnicity are perfect counterweights to McCain and either Obama or Hillary.

    She'd be perfect except for one thing: Her performnce as National Security Advisor and Sec. of State has been nothing less than catastrophic.

    Iraq, being unprepared for 9/11, middle east "peace", the cratering of america's standing in the world -- all of this is part of her resume. And the performance of her star student: junior -- has been every bit as shameful, or worse.

    Nor has she shown herself to be a particulary good public speaker or advocate. She's never run for public office, nor even had to withstand a decently rigorous Senate hearing. Like most of junior's senior staff -- she got her jobs primarily for being loyal to junior. (Brownie, Gonzales, etc., etc...)

    Unless you are looking to back up an old man with an intern with no proven skills for the job, she'd be diasterous as a choice.

    Powell would be better -- a closet war skeptic -- he'd at least bring some credibility to McCain in regard to Iraq.

    Though his performance as Sec of State is widely respected, he did lend his honour out -- like a gun used to rob a bank -- in that infamous "speech" at the UN in support of junior's lies.

    Offsetting that dispicable history, he's known to be an inspiring and effective speaker. And Powell's life in the military -- his rise through the ranks to be Chief of Staff, becoming National Security Advisor, and finally Sec. of State -- is much more authoritative and credible than Rice's.

    A veteran of Vietnam like McCain, his presence beside McCain would reenforce McCain's gravitas.

    Choosing Powell would also strengthen McCain's image as an iconoclast willing to move outside the box -- choosing someone who the right would hate. But as an abortion and affirmative action supporter, Powell may well get such fiery opposition that he simply can't be chosen. (and I'm glad for that).

    Romney again on paper seems ideal -- a hard campaigner who nearly got the nomination -- he has a strong base amongst evangelicals. But there are just as many -- if not many more evangelicals, who hate and distrust this member of the Mormon cult.

    What's more, Governor Silly Puddy has proven to be a horrible campaigner, and an embarrassingly transparent oppurtunist and hypocrite. Romney would help him win no state -- and he would in no way reenforce McCain's credibility or stature. The myth that Gov. Silly Puddy could offset McCain's lack of credentials on the economy is absurd.

    Silly Puddy has never himself really worked on the ground as a worker or a businessman. His experience is largely as head of a hedge fund (big whoops for that resume item), or as head of the Mormon Olympic committee. He has largely distanced himself from his own time as Governor. Romney is a bad choice -- he would do nothing for McCain. (but I hope McCain picks him.)

    The most likely VP is someone I know little about: Gov. Crist of Florida. Attractive, moderate sounding, and from an important swing state where he's popular, Crist also knows how to win in a state closely divided between dems and reps. And I think he's a decent speaker.

    McCain appears to both be personally close to him, as well as owing him a debt of gratitude for endorsing and supporting him before Florida's primary.

    I'm guessing McCain picks Crist.

    Obama: Richardson

    Hillary: Senator Jim Webb (of Virginia)

    (all this is from memory -- in case I've muddled any bio facts)
    Last edited by BARYE; 04/25/2008 at 03:24 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  5. #5  
    McCain: Iíve seen some pundits talking up Carly Fiorina, the ex HP CEO. I donít see it though. First, most people donít know much about her, plus many in the business community view her as a failed executive. However, heís going to need to choose someone to generate a little excitement, especially since he kinda makes you yawn. I think someone like Powell, would make the Dems., very nervous, strategically, he is about the only one that has the potential to shake things up. Obamaís stature does not compare to Powell, especially with the voters that McCain is trying to attract. I donít believe his UN speech was fatal. He was lied to too. But Iím afraid Powellís wife may not be able to take or want the burden.

    Clinton: Obama. I donít see how she gets around it, especially if the super delegates play a role in giving it to her.

    Obama: Clinton. He may have even more problems in the general election if he doesnít. Itís not like heís blowing her away, even though he is ahead, she does have substantial support, especially among those so called Reagan Democrats. He canít reach the magic number anymore than she. The longer she stays in, she just may be in a position to demand it. Which just may be her end game. Other than her, someone like Sam Nunn. Southern...moderate/conservative who was/is strong on national defense.
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  6. #6  
    McCain - Crist... Mccain will do well out west, bush will help him in TX... Crist would more than likely sew up fl for the Rep.... Long as he does not pick his boyfriend, Lieberman, he will be ok. I see that Bayre seems to know of Crist... I've heard him speak... he is definitely on top of his game. I've also seen him get roughed up by Chis Mathews... Crist took two seconds, then responded with the most intelligent and calm answer possible at the time. I like Crist....

    Obama - Needs to go with a Gov or other person with vast experience. I could kick around some names, but I think it is safe to say that obama needs an older person with VAST experience (hillary = no experience). Obama needs to pull a Bush and get himself a cheney. Richardson has the experience, but I think that would be a disaster ticket. Obama needs the older white voters, catholics, and "Blue-collar" peeps. I'm not sure Richardson gives obama that....

    Clinton - Uhh... who cares? Ok, ok.... hill would pick obama and the amount of devastation that mccain would put them through would be horrific. I don't see how two inexperienced (or perceived to be inexperienced) candidates equal a "Super Ticket." I don't get it. That is like saying two Robins equal a batman. If clinton was to finagle her way to the nomination she would not win anyway.... For the record, I'd say she needs a cheney as well.
    Last edited by theog; 04/25/2008 at 09:44 AM.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by Iago View Post
    McCain: I’ve seen some pundits talking up Carly Fiorina, the ex HP CEO. I don’t see it though. First, most people don’t know much about her, plus many in the business community view her as a failed executive. However, he’s going to need to choose someone to generate a little excitement, especially since he kinda makes you yawn. I think someone like Powell, would make the Dems., very nervous, strategically, he is about the only one that has the potential to shake things up. Obama’s stature does not compare to Powell, especially with the voters that McCain is trying to attract. I don’t believe his UN speech was fatal. He was lied to too. But I’m afraid Powell’s wife may not be able to take or want the burden.

    Clinton: Obama. I don’t see how she gets around it, especially if the super delegates play a role in giving it to her.

    Obama: Clinton. He may have even more problems in the general election if he doesn’t. It’s not like he’s blowing her away, even though he is ahead, she does have substantial support, especially among those so called Reagan Democrats. He can’t reach the magic number anymore than she. The longer she stays in, she just may be in a position to demand it. Which just may be her end game. Other than her, someone like Sam Nunn. Southern...moderate/conservative who was/is strong on national defense.

    Agree with all that -- especially Fiorina. Putting lipstick on that pig ain't making her into anything but a failed executive with a golden parachute. (she is HATED at HP). Though the media doesn't do those types of stories especially well.

    For McCain there's Senator Lieberman -- a name I guessed that McCain would pick originally back in late December.

    I doubt Hillary would want it -- or that he'd genuinely want her to take it -- though I agree with everything else you've said about them. And I don't see him accepting an offer from her either -- though she'd REALLY want him to take it.

    Nunn is an old version of Webb -- and he's been off the stage too long, and wasn't even that great back then. I could be wrong though.

    Another name to think of for both is Evan Bayh of Indiana -- he's a name others are floating heavily. Attractive, young -- middle american state.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  8. #8  
    Romney, for ALL of them. That's the only wayI would actually be content (and only semi-content regarding the democrat candidates).
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Choosing a Vice President is going to be one of the first big decisions each candidate at the top of their ticket is going to have to make. Sometimes it is someone they can work well with and has a similar perspective on issues. But often times they don't even get along that well, but the VP is chosen because they will be able to draw in whole new groups of demographics of voters. For example, Reagan and Bush Sr is a perfect example of this.

    So the question is who would you pick for the VP for the following candidates and why do you think that is the best choice?

    John McCain

    Hillary Clinton

    Barack Obama

    I cannot imagine Hillary picking anyone with any integrity and political clout, so I have no clue there.

    Obama? Hmmmm...... Can't think of a good person that would not be eclipsed by Obama in the media, so have no one clearly beneficial to suggest. I think Edwards would take it if offered, and that might play to the south, but....

    I cannot see either Obama or Clinton naming the other to the second seat (nor either taking such an offer). It could happen, I just do not see it as at all likely.

    McCain? Only one interesting individual comes to mind. That person has an excellent relationship with McCain, shares many of McCain's policy views, is nationally know, reasonably well respected and would absolutely throw the entire election into a tizzy: Joe Lieberman.

    Can any of us really imagine a cross-party ticket and what that would to to the voting? Sheer chaos.

    Talk about making history!

    The GOP base would drop bricks in their knickers over picking a Democrat.

    The Democrat base is already going to be conflicted after a candidate is finally selected due to the divisions between the Clinton and Obama camps. Throw in another Democrat choice, even if only for VP, and what might happen?

    How might the great "moderate" middle react to a ticket with a moderate to liberal-ish Republican and a moderate to conservative-ish Democrat?

    And would either Democrat candidate even have a clue as to a strategy against such a ticket? Would it have even crossed the minds of either campaign?

    If McCain could manage to get through the convention and hold off naming a VP candidate until later in the cycle, he could throw the Dems off message, put them on the defense, appeal to the mass moderate middle, and suck all the media oxygen out of the room for most, if not all, the remainder of the campaign. He might could even negate the influence of the far wings of both parties.

    To say nothing of putting the Dems back in the unenviable position of campaining against a Dem as has been the case throughout the primaries.

    Such an approach would make for "Interesting Times".

    Just an idle thought.....
  10. #10  
    I'd like to see Biden as Obama's VP. That would somewhat ease my biggest concerns about Obama's judgement on national security and foreign policy.

    I saw a survey which showed that a McCain-Rice ticket might actually win New York. But I would hate to see her as VP. I agree with BARYE that she's been a major disappointment so far. I don't really get why she's so popular. Plus, I think her deep involvement in the planning of the Iraq War would tie McCain too closely to Bush.

    I might prefer he went with Lieberman, but it would probably be smarter politically to go with Romney.

    I also think Hillary would have to pick Obama. That would unite the Democrats, but it would do nothing for those people who have doubts about their experience.
  11. #11  
    Barye, you sound more and more every day like the MoveOn.org spokesperson and gosh, you are not even paid for it.

    Your statements are full of so much repetitious rhetoric that is so openly a complete repeat of MoveOn.org. Your assessments are far from original and frankly getting very old.

    You speak of failures and point to nothing of fact. Are you aware of the length of time we were in Japan and Germany? Many times longer than the length of time we have been in Iraq. You speak of the many failures of George Bush. Well, the facts you quote are just not there. Where he has openly failed: border security and immigration.

    You also mention experience of Romney and I quote from below:

    "Silly Puddy has never himself really worked on the ground as a worker or a businessman. His experience is largely as head of a hedge fund (big whoops for that resume item), or as head of the Mormon Olympic committee. He has largely distanced himself from his own time as Governor. Romney is a bad choice -- he would do nothing for McCain. (but I hope McCain picks him.)"

    From your post, you seem to place a bit of importance on experience, which speaks well of you. However, from exactly what you have said, take a look at the candidates from the Democrat party.

    Both are lawyers married to lawyers. Of the four lawyers, only one as done anything to his credit, and some of that not too hot. You speak of job experience: three of them have NO job experience in the real world - they are lawyers. Each of the three lawyers have associations that to middle America (which I take it you are regardless of your political stance), are not welcome to most people comprising middle America. Middle America encompasses more than whites, more than blacks - it encompasses all of us who work and contribute positively to this country's future - those that give far more than take - I believe that fits you.

    Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama have associations that go right to the root of anti-Americanism - they both have known associations with terrorists and murderers. Take the nice coatings off of these people as they are now and you cannot ignore the fact that their agenda was to murder their opponents and that they did. They were out to hurt others - and one openly stated he did not done enough. With years of association behind them, and your statement that experience does count, then you are very plainly doing nothing more than repeating MOVEON.org, which believes anything is fair game as long as it gets them to their objective.

    Your opinion is your opinion, as is mine. You need to stop voicing your opinion as fact. It has gotten very old.

    Ben


    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    those are good guesses.

    Hillary would have to offer it to Barrack -- he would likely decline.

    He would almost never offer it to her.

    On paper Rice (that would be rice paper, btw) would be McCain's perfect choice.

    A woman who's had a varied and extraordinary career: concert pianist, professor of Russian studies, Dean at Stanford, National Security adviser, Sec. of State... And her gender and ethnicity are perfect counterweights to McCain and either Obama or Hillary.

    She'd be perfect except for one thing: Her performnce as National Security Advisor and Sec. of State has been nothing less than catastrophic.

    Iraq, being unprepared for 9/11, middle east "peace", the cratering of america's standing in the world -- all of this is part of her resume. And the performance of her star student: junior -- has been every bit as shameful, or worse.

    Nor has she shown herself to be a particulary good public speaker or advocate. She's never run for public office, nor even had to withstand a decently rigorous Senate hearing. Like most of junior's senior staff -- she got her jobs primarily for being loyal to junior. (Brownie, Gonzales, etc., etc...)

    Unless you are looking to back up an old man with an intern with no proven skills for the job, she'd be diasterous as a choice.

    Powell would be better -- a closet war skeptic -- he'd at least bring some credibility to McCain in regard to Iraq.

    Though his performance as Sec of State is widely respected, he did lend his honour out -- like a gun used to rob a bank -- in that infamous "speech" at the UN in support of junior's lies.

    Offsetting that dispicable history, he's known to be an inspiring and effective speaker. And Powell's life in the military -- his rise through the ranks to be Chief of Staff, becoming National Security Advisor, and finally Sec. of State -- is much more authoritative and credible than Rice's.

    A veteran of Vietnam like McCain, his presence beside McCain would reenforce McCain's gravitas.

    Choosing Powell would also strengthen McCain's image as an iconoclast willing to move outside the box -- choosing someone who the right would hate. But as an abortion and affirmative action supporter, Powell may well get such fiery opposition that he simply can't be chosen. (and I'm glad for that).

    Romney again on paper seems ideal -- a hard campaigner who nearly got the nomination -- he has a strong base amongst evangelicals. But there are just as many -- if not many more evangelicals, who hate and distrust this member of the Mormon cult.

    What's more, Governor Silly Puddy has proven to be a horrible campaigner, and an embarrassingly transparent oppurtunist and hypocrite. Romney would help him win no state -- and he would in no way reenforce McCain's credibility or stature. The myth that Gov. Silly Puddy could offset McCain's lack of credentials on the economy is absurd.

    Silly Puddy has never himself really worked on the ground as a worker or a businessman. His experience is largely as head of a hedge fund (big whoops for that resume item), or as head of the Mormon Olympic committee. He has largely distanced himself from his own time as Governor. Romney is a bad choice -- he would do nothing for McCain. (but I hope McCain picks him.)

    The most likely VP is someone I know little about: Gov. Crist of Florida. Attractive, moderate sounding, and from an important swing state where he's popular, Crist also knows how to win in a state closely divided between dems and reps. And I think he's a decent speaker.

    McCain appears to both be personally close to him, as well as owing him a debt of gratitude for endorsing and supporting him before Florida's primary.

    I'm guessing McCain picks Crist.

    Obama: Richardson

    Hillary: Senator Jim Webb (of Virginia)

    (all this is from memory -- in case I've muddled any bio facts)
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Barye, you sound more and more every day like the MoveOn.org spokesperson and gosh, you are not even paid for it.


    I've GOT to use that line... instant classic.

    I'll use it word for word, only replacing the name.

    Rest of the post went into "fictional rant" but the first line was funny.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  13. #13  
    Re Mitt Romney, he worked his career as a management consultant. He later ran Bain Capital (a private equity subsidiary of Bain & Co.), and then was the CEO of Bain & Co (a major management consulting firm), where he supposedly did very well. It's hard to think of many people in politics with a business background this strong. Perhaps Bloomberg, some Goldman alum, and some former cabinet members.

    Btw, in private equity, you need a very strong knowledge of business operations and strategy; CEOs work for you.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Barye, you sound more and more every day like the MoveOn.org spokesperson and gosh, you are not even paid for it.

    Your statements are full of so much repetitious rhetoric that is so openly a complete repeat of MoveOn.org. Your assessments are far from original and frankly getting very old.

    You speak of failures and point to nothing of fact. Are you aware of the length of time we were in Japan and Germany? Many times longer than the length of time we have been in Iraq. You speak of the many failures of George Bush. Well, the facts you quote are just not there. Where he has openly failed: border security and immigration...


    jeez... I am a member of moveon.org, but I never read the copious junk they stuff my inbox with. And I never read their lit.

    Moveon had a "primary" -- an online survey where members voted on whom the organization should endorse. I was among I think 16% ?? that supported Hillary. The group endorsed Obama. Heartily.

    Though I'm obviously in bed with Hillary, in general I'm supportive of moveon. They are a group of very idealistic and progressive folks -- whose only agenda is making things better.

    I'm disappointed though that you should think that the source of anything I write is ever from anyone but me -- no one enjoys what BARYE writes more than me -- and I'm motivated primarily for my own entertainment and self discovery.

    I really don't care if I persuade anyone else.

    Perhaps one of the reasons I in general have good friendships here with those with views other than mine, is that I understand that its the friction of exchange and argument that is what makes things fun in this forum -- its largely pointless to have a debate with those whom you mostly agree.

    I read almost no opinion or advocacy stuff. My news comes from the networks, the major papers, and a few that maybe you don’t read. I do also watch (clenched in anger) the Keith Doberman show on MSNBC -- and a few of the Sunday intervus, especially The McLaughlin Group. (I’m a closet Pat Buchanan fan.)

    I DVR all my news -- and usually play it back at 1.5 to 2x speed as I play Xbox live. (I watch The Daily Show at normal speed though.)

    (I have tried playing Xbox live without watching the news -- but it didn’t improve my gaming performance any ...)

    Most everything I write comes from memory -- I almost never “research” anything before I write it. (though especially for longer entries, I will write in WordPerfect -- both because I hate my spelling typos -- and because I’ve had browser crashes wipe out lengthy postings that were nearly finished).

    And yes I know how long we’ve been in Japan and Germany -- and I also know why that analogy is way past meaningless to be outright misleading and ill-informed. But that’s a different discussion ...
    Last edited by BARYE; 04/26/2008 at 07:33 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I'd like to see Biden as Obama's VP. That would somewhat ease my biggest concerns about Obama's judgement on national security and foreign policy.
    Biden would be a good choice, as would Webb. But I think if itís going to be Obama, he may have to address the notion that many of her supporters say they wouldnít support him. Maybe thatís just ďin the heat of the battleĒ talk, but given our race relations history, it wouldnít surprise me to see people cut off their nose to spite their face.

    Much has been written about the animus between Obama and Clinton, but thatís just ...... politics. Remember the first Bush and Reagan? Voodoo Economics? Remember Kennedy and Johnson? Iíve read where they didnít much like each other either. Obama/Clinton makes political sense to me because of the groundswell of people turning out to vote in the democratic primaries. They need to capitalize on this. Obama/Clinton would maximize this excitement, thereby blunting the defections to McCain.
    Obama/Clinton could work in spite of their perceived lack of experience. The key is having top notch people around them. Presidents always say they want someone who can take the reins on day one, but thatís just the politically correct thing to say. Remember Dan Quayle? (Is that potato or potatoe?) Hahaha
    Putting competent people in the cabinet positions as well as the other departments and agencies is whatís critical. You have to have people that are competent and can execute, and there are a lot of top flight people out there.
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  16. #16  
    I don't think Clinton and Obama would have a problem working together. Clinton as much as proposed it. And Obama is practical enough.

    But I think Obama would not choose Clinton because she isn't the optimal running mate for him. First, picking Clinton would run counter to his promise of running a post-partisan, lobbyist-free administration. Second, I think their combined lack of experience would become a central issue running against McCain. It's true that Obama can appoint more experienced officials as cabinet members, but their names wouldn't be on the ballot. Obama can make experience a non-issue simply by picking a VP with a great deal of credibility in Washington.
  17. #17  
    Bayre, does that mean that that a lot of what you write is meaningless, based on nothing other than entertainment value for yourself? Keith as a reporter? Oh my gosh! Ben
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    a lot of what you write is meaningless, based on nothing other than entertainment value for yourself?
    Pretty much 95% of the stuff you read on forums is BS. Good cheap entertainment... while we sit in front of our ***** machines looking like we are working.

    When you think about it, nothing is really explained on this forum... people regurgitate stuff they read or heard about from various sources. Very few of the "facts" on this forum is from people who saw the action firsthand.

    I don't mind the drivel, it makes for good entertainment.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Barye, you sound more and more every day like the MoveOn.org spokesperson and gosh, you are not even paid for it.

    Your statements are full of so much repetitious rhetoric that is so openly a complete repeat of MoveOn.org. Your assessments are far from original and frankly getting very old.

    You speak of failures and point to nothing of fact. Are you aware of the length of time we were in Japan and Germany? Many times longer than the length of time we have been in Iraq. You speak of the many failures of George Bush. Well, the facts you quote are just not there. Where he has openly failed: border security and immigration.

    You also mention experience of Romney and I quote from below:

    "Silly Puddy has never himself really worked on the ground as a worker or a businessman. His experience is largely as head of a hedge fund (big whoops for that resume item), or as head of the Mormon Olympic committee. He has largely distanced himself from his own time as Governor. Romney is a bad choice -- he would do nothing for McCain. (but I hope McCain picks him.)"

    From your post, you seem to place a bit of importance on experience, which speaks well of you. However, from exactly what you have said, take a look at the candidates from the Democrat party.

    Both are lawyers married to lawyers. Of the four lawyers, only one as done anything to his credit, and some of that not too hot. You speak of job experience: three of them have NO job experience in the real world - they are lawyers. Each of the three lawyers have associations that to middle America (which I take it you are regardless of your political stance), are not welcome to most people comprising middle America. Middle America encompasses more than whites, more than blacks - it encompasses all of us who work and contribute positively to this country's future - those that give far more than take - I believe that fits you.

    Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama have associations that go right to the root of anti-Americanism - they both have known associations with terrorists and murderers. Take the nice coatings off of these people as they are now and you cannot ignore the fact that their agenda was to murder their opponents and that they did. They were out to hurt others - and one openly stated he did not done enough. With years of association behind them, and your statement that experience does count, then you are very plainly doing nothing more than repeating MOVEON.org, which believes anything is fair game as long as it gets them to their objective.
    Ben
    Nothing wrong with being a proud republican, if thatís your perspective. But when you try and deny the obvious....well you look like a silly cheerleader with no credibility.

    Why do you think Bushís approval rating is stuck around 28 percent? Do you consider a president with a 28 percent approval rating successful? I could give you a laundry list of failures and scandal. But I want to be positive. After all he is my president too. Let's point to some examples of success. Forget about Iraq, Katrina, Scooter Libby, the warrantless wiretapping, the fired US attorneys, Walter Reed and the abysmal treatment of veterans, The non-functioning FDA,EPA, etc, etc, Letís see...????.....lower taxes....?????...huh...???? I need your help.

    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Your opinion is your opinion, as is mine. You need to stop voicing your opinion as fact. It has gotten very old.
    Ben
    This simply doesnít make any sense. An opinion is a view not necessarily based on fact. Seems to me like you may be upset because his opinions sound persuasive? Otherwise why are YOU accepting it as fact? Hahahaha
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  20. #20  
    Almost everything you pick has a problem. Katrina - was that not a democrat running the state and the major refusing to do anything? Sure the federal government could have moved a bit faster, but what about the local and state governments - they did nothing - do you remember that?
    The fired US attorneys - every president has the option and does so - did not Clinton do the same thing? Walter Reed - that has been an on going issue for more than 1 president. The FDA/EPA, et cetera - that is a saga that has spanned a couple of administrations. Lower taxes - yes, the Bush tax cuts stimualated the economy and the democrat tax increases will definitely not help the economy. Anything else of substance?

    you speak of popularity, sure he is not up there, but neither are your lovely heros - they are much, much lower and Nancy can't even remember the price of gasoline. How can your buddy fix gas prices when he raises everything? Gosh, as you said, hahahaha.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions