Romney tops McCain's list for VP

[avatar4321]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080630/pl_politico/11435

This surprises me. But I must say i like it.

[glockmail]

That's great news. He'll win back a lot of conservatives that way. Plus it will set up Romney as a shoe-in in '12.

[namvet]

good as any. and he fairly young to.

[Little-Acorn]

He'll win back a lot of conservatives that way.

He will? Why?

Vice Presidents never do diddly, nor do they ever effect policy in any meaningful way. Unless the Prez is unusually amenable to suggestion, which W wasn't and McCain certainly isn't.

People who change their votes for a candidate based on his VP selection are kidding themselves.

BTW, you aren't actually listening to all the liberal screaming about how Cheney is the hidden power behind W's throne, are you? I thought better of you than that, glock.

[namvet]

He will? Why?

Vice Presidents never do diddly, nor do they ever effect policy in any meaningful way. Unless the Prez is unusually amenable to suggestion, which W wasn't and McCain certainly isn't.

People who change their votes for a candidate based on his VP selection are kidding themselves.

BTW, you aren't actually listening to all the liberal screaming about how Cheney is the hidden power behind W's throne, are you? I thought better of you than that, glock.

in this day and age VP's will be required to do more than "diddly"

[crin63]

Romney isn't going to help, he was only conservative compared to McCain. That will cost McCain votes more than it will help. There are still allot of people who won't vote for a Mormon.

The only one that would really going to help is Bobby Jindal.

[glockmail]

He will? Why?

Vice Presidents never do diddly, nor do they ever effect policy in any meaningful way. Unless the Prez is unusually amenable to suggestion, which W wasn't and McCain certainly isn't.

People who change their votes for a candidate based on his VP selection are kidding themselves.

BTW, you aren't actually listening to all the liberal screaming about how Cheney is the hidden power behind W's throne, are you? I thought better of you than that, glock.Cheny? No we all know the real power behind the Bush Presidency is Karl Rove. :rolleyes:

Seriously, there's no question that Cheny is a trusted advisor, and has more influence on the presidency than say, Dan Quail or Al Gore. Since McCain isn't big on economic issues while Romney is, I think its safe to assume that he'd have a similar relationship in a McCain administration, at least with respect to certain issues.

Also I don't see McCain running in 2012, so this would set up Romney for then- against Hillary.

[glockmail]

Romney isn't going to help, he was only conservative compared to McCain. That will cost McCain votes more than it will help. There are still allot of people who won't vote for a Mormon.

The only one that would really going to help is Bobby Jindal. Jindal needs to stay in La and clean it up first. We'll need him in 2016 or 2020.

[crin63]

Jindal needs to stay in La and clean it up first. We'll need him in 2016 or 2020.

At the rate Jindal is going in LA it will be cleaned up by January. :coffee:

I really don't think Romney is the answer. I still hear people referring to Mormonism as a cult and they will never vote for Romney.

Jindal is probably the best communicator I have heard since Reagan. He's a bona fide Conservative, he offsets the age thing with McCain and he offsets to some degree the black thing with NObama. I think he can bring back the conservative vote in a way that Romney cant.

It also sets him up for 2012. I don't think we can afford to wait until 2016 or 2020 for him to run.

[Trigg]

Romney will bring the economic experience that McCain is missing. He was also my first choice for republican nominee.

[Yurt]

Romney will bring the economic experience that McCain is missing. He was also my first choice for republican nominee.

good point

[avatar4321]

Romney will bring the economic experience that McCain is missing. He was also my first choice for republican nominee.

He also puts Michigan majorly into play.

Also, it would actually make me alittle enthusiastic for our race.

[mundame]

He'll win back a lot of conservatives that way. Plus it will set up Romney as a shoe-in in '12.



I doubt it will be Romney. With all the problems McCain already has, he's going to take on a MORMON who has already been decisively rejected in the primaries??

I think that would be foolish.

[glockmail]

I doubt it will be Romney. With all the problems McCain already has, he's going to take on a MORMON who has already been decisively rejected in the primaries??

I think that would be foolish. All the bigots will be voting Democrat anyway.

[emmett]

Jindal needs to stay in La and clean it up first. We'll need him in 2016 or 2020.

By 2020, surely we will have wised up and elected a Libertarian as our president.

[mundame]

By 2020, surely we will have wised up and elected a Libertarian as our president.


Ha. We'll never be that smart.

By 2020, tired of blacks in the government with their incredible corruption and mismanagement, tired of income redistribution from whites to blacks who use it for drugs and orgies, the country will have split apart and be having wars among the different regions.

[mundame]

You guys think things will go on and on as they are --------- but why?

They never do anywhere.

Revolutions and civil wars are common, indeed universal; empires and large nations always break up.

Compared to most European countries, we are waaaaay overdue. Four empires broke up after World War I. The Japanese Empire was broken after WWII, and Germany was split into parts. The Soviet Union broke apart in 1991.

Why you think this country can survive the Obamonation reaction to the Bush catastrophe, I don't know. Russia sure didn't survive the Czar's casual decision to throw his people into the meatgrinder of WWI (nor did the Czar or his family: they were all shot). Revolution, communism, 30 million killed by Stalin, WWII, breakup.

That's what happens when rulers casually go into wars they lose. And usually it's what happens with the NEXT guy that is worse: the Czar made the bad WWI decision, but it was Lenin and Trotsky that paved the way for Stalin and communism. Same deal with Bush, and here comes this fool Obama who already hates America, especially whites.


I think we're in a far worse situation than people realize.

[avatar4321]

You guys think things will go on and on as they are --------- but why?

They never do anywhere.

Revolutions and civil wars are common, indeed universal; empires and large nations always break up.

Compared to most European countries, we are waaaaay overdue. Four empires broke up after World War I. The Japanese Empire was broken after WWII, and Germany was split into parts. The Soviet Union broke apart in 1991.

Why you think this country can survive the Obamonation reaction to the Bush catastrophe, I don't know. Russia sure didn't survive the Czar's casual decision to throw his people into the meatgrinder of WWI (nor did the Czar or his family: they were all shot). Revolution, communism, 30 million killed by Stalin, WWII, breakup.

That's what happens when rulers casually go into wars they lose. And usually it's what happens with the NEXT guy that is worse: the Czar made the bad WWI decision, but it was Lenin and Trotsky that paved the way for Stalin and communism. Same deal with Bush, and here comes this fool Obama who already hates America, especially whites.


I think we're in a far worse situation than people realize.

Sounds like a good topic for another thread.

[glockmail]

.... Obamonation reaction to the Bush catastrophe, .... You're off your rocker!

[mundame]

You're off your rocker!


Nope, that's how it works: First there's a Tiberius, a corruption and degradation of a better form of government (in Tiberius' case, Augustus Caesar).

Things don't go well, but it's not a total collapse yet.

Then because Tiberius has weakened everything including the systems, a real baddie comes in --- in that case, Caligula, who was stark, raving mad and made his horse a Roman senator, and then Nero came next.


So we've got some fiddling and burning to look forward to after Bush.

[glockmail]

Nope, that's how it works: First there's a Tiberius, a corruption and degradation of a better form of government (in Tiberius' case, Augustus Caesar).

Things don't go well, but it's not a total collapse yet.

Then because Tiberius has weakened everything including the systems, a real baddie comes in --- in that case, Caligula, who was stark, raving mad and made his horse a Roman senator, and then Nero came next.


So we've got some fiddling and burning to look forward to after Bush.
So Bush is Caesar. Your rocker landed on top of you. :laugh2:

[mundame]

So Bush is Caesar. Your rocker landed on top of you. :laugh2:


Nope, Reagan was Caesar.

Bush is Tiberius, the beginning of the end.

[MtnBiker]

By 2020, surely we will have wised up and elected a Libertarian as our president.

What about the congress, how much of it will be comprised of libertarian party members?

[mundame]

What about the congress, how much of it will be comprised of libertarian party members?


A LOT, and verrrrrrrrrrrrry quickly, if the parties switch out. I sure thought the Republicans would be replaced by Libertarians this cycle, but I was wrong.

Okay, Glockmail, maybe everything will go on and on and on just like always, no big changes, nothing much happening........................................

That wasn't what happened 9/11/2001, however.

[Trigg]

He also puts Michigan majorly into play.

Also, it would actually make me alittle enthusiastic for our race.

I was pulling for him all along. He makes sense because of his background in business, and he sounds like an honest person.

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

, he's not going to take on a MORMON :poke: I Highly doubt Romney being a mormon will play any part. if that were true NO one would of voted for the Muslim Obama

[MtnBiker]

A LOT, and verrrrrrrrrrrrry quickly, if the parties switch out. I sure thought the Republicans would be replaced by Libertarians this cycle, but I was wrong.



There is not a singal Libertarian congressman. The party is not going to switch out and the Republicans will not be replaced by the Libertarians. The Democrats would have a much better chance of replacing Republican seats than Libertarians.

[mundame]

There is not a singal Libertarian congressman. The party is not going to switch out and the Republicans will not be replaced by the Libertarians. The Democrats would have a much better chance of replacing Republican seats than Libertarians.


That's an assertion, and it's about the future: about which there is no data.

When the Whigs failed as a party about 1856, the Republicans came in very quickly ------ when Abe Lincoln was elected president, suddenly everybody was a Republican, not a Whig.

These things happen very quickly when they happen at all. Because politicians follow power: they go where they can get it, they don't hang around unpopular beliefs and systems! There's no power in that. What, do you think these are principled people? Ha.