-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Who Should Senator McCain have for a VP
- Thread starter BourneID
- Start date
Someday
Dude?
ahh...profiles in moderation......yeah...there have been lots of great moderates in history.
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Barry Goldwater
So now....let's talk about hope. This guy is from a little town called Hope.
Wow, so clever! Because after eight years of Bill Clinton leadership our country was in ruins and all hope was lost. Thank God the fine people of America elected George W. Bush. After seven years in office, he managed to turn our country around. We've never had such economic prosperity, such international stability, such hope for the future.
It is truly scary to think that we might actually elect a moderate. We'd have to remember frightening words like "compromise" and "progress".
And I just want to thank you personally. You showed such bravery in voting for George W. Bush, a man clearly ill-equipped to be president. Look at what wonderful things he has brought to our country:
A War.
A Recession.
A Hillary Clinton presidency.
So if it makes you feel smart, go ahead and quote Barry Goldwater. Despite all your education, it escapes you that your party betrayed you these last seven years. It is quite a trick they've played on you.
SD
To blame a recession or credit the president with prosperity I think are both pretty retarded. In the grand scheme of things, the President affects the economy very little. With that said, during the Bush presidency, we've had record lows of unemployment and we've had only moderate inflation, which is hard to do at the same time (look up "Phillip's Curve").
And we don't know that Clinton will be in office. This election, like most others, I'm sure will be hard fought.
"Rabid moderate" ... ????
Hmmmmm .... a strange choice of word juxtaposition. Kinda like the infamous, oxymoronic "jumbo shrimp" ... ???
Product of my confused SOCAL upbringing.
Believe me, I’ve seen stranger things. Like the atheist whose primary activities in high school were running his synagogue’s youth, Torah study, and outreach programs.On some issues I'm an evil liberal, on others I'm a pig-headed militarist conservative. And on many, I honest to God fanatically believe that a middle of the road approach is best. I try to follow, “Everything in moderation, (and here’s the kicker that makes it work), including moderation.” We all have some things we won’t budge on for the sake of “compromise” or “progress.” If we didn’t, we probably wouldn’t be worth associating with in the first place
Good points.
How in the hell can you even presume to know what my party affiliation is? I'm definatley right of center ideologically, but I'm not going to carry the water for the GOP. I can't even begin to tell you how disappointed I an in the Republicrats.
Kondratiev waves...look it up. There are a few people on this board that know a thing or two about economics, so don't be so quick to pull the trigger and blame one person. As DanMav stated, the President has little influence on the economy. If that were the case, the same argument could be made about the dot-com bust, Worldcom, Enron, and pin it all on Clinton; after all, he should have seen it coming and done something about it.
That said, the first AQ attacks (embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the Cole) were while Clinton was in office. Rules out "getting us into a war" in Afghanistan; and regarding Iraq, they were in regular violation of the UNSCR and the cease-fire they agreed to regardless of weapons programs status. Iraq wasn't a matter of if, but rather when.
Much as I'd like to blame Clinton for everything that has ever gone wrong, I can't. I'm no fan of either one of the Clintons. But on that same note, he's hardly the cause of market success during the 90s.
Back to topic: running mate for VP spot...I'm thinking Gov. Charlie Crist of FL may be a contender. He's been standing in the background on more than one McCain campaign stop post-FL primary. He's a solid conservative, has a background as a tough FL attorney general, well-liked, personable, and popular in the South...
So if Crist goes VP does that mean JEB can come back to FL?
Good question...never thought it'd be a two-for-one good deal...
you're a fvckin moron.....If HRC is elected, is will be precisely because of "moderation".
Are you kidding, Lieberman, cross ticket? You select someone that will do something for you. Lieberman brings nothing to the table. Democrats won't vote for a McCain Lieberman ticket and the moderate Republicans and RINOs (if they aren't the same) will already vote for McCain. A McCain ticket needs someone that will help him win a big state where he needs help or a more Conservative person then himself to placate the base. Just because you may not agree with or even respect the GOP base doesn't mean any GOP presidential candidate doesn't want them, and very probably, need them. Dem's hate Bush. Any Republican will be fragged by that hate bomb. Therefore, they need their base. And because there are so many haters out there, it only takes a few to stay home, whether rational or not, to hand it to the Dem's. As someone already said. It may be a guy not known to most the rest of the country, but will be VERY strategic. Not kumbaya or touchy feally like Lieberman or even Rudy.
I personally don't understand the conservative branch who won't vote for McCain because he's not conservative enough. In spite of Ann Coulter going off the deep end in her pursuit of publicity, Clinton and Obama are significantly more liberal than McCain, who, except for some well publicized breaks, has been regarded as a conservative for 20 years. Which one would they rather have appointing 2 supreme court justices or running the war on terror/Islamic extremism?
Nevertheless, he needs someone who will appeal to the base, yet not regarded as potentially whacko by the general populace. Ideally, it would not be another old white guy, since the Dems will either be running a woman or a black guy, and perhaps both. That means anyone over 60 is out. Huckabee is socially conservative, but with the exception of the flat tax, is economically liberal, plus he is a bit whacked on the religion bit. Condi Rice is smart, and a double minority, but she is too linked to President Bush, and the war. Unfortunately, the list of high-ranking Republican minorities is about as deep as a wading pool.
My bet would be Charlie Crist. Florida will be on the fence this election, and the Republicans need to keep it to stay viable. Sen DeMint and Gov Sanford in SC would also be good, but SC is already a solid Republican state. If only Arnold could run--even though he's liberal, if the Republicans could take CA, it would be all over.
Nevertheless, he needs someone who will appeal to the base, yet not regarded as potentially whacko by the general populace. Ideally, it would not be another old white guy, since the Dems will either be running a woman or a black guy, and perhaps both. That means anyone over 60 is out. Huckabee is socially conservative, but with the exception of the flat tax, is economically liberal, plus he is a bit whacked on the religion bit. Condi Rice is smart, and a double minority, but she is too linked to President Bush, and the war. Unfortunately, the list of high-ranking Republican minorities is about as deep as a wading pool.
My bet would be Charlie Crist. Florida will be on the fence this election, and the Republicans need to keep it to stay viable. Sen DeMint and Gov Sanford in SC would also be good, but SC is already a solid Republican state. If only Arnold could run--even though he's liberal, if the Republicans could take CA, it would be all over.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Exactly. I don't understand how anyone can say McCain isn't conservative enough, but then be content to let Hillary or Obama, who are even less conservative, take the Presidency. Also, from what I do know of McCain's voting record when he "crossed the party lines," he's always had a clear, logical, and practical reason for doing so that didn't revolve around self-advancement. I'd much rather have a guy who can look at a situation and make his own rational conclusions about the issue rather than a guy who will just spew whatever his party says.
Romney is the best for president. He already has millions so you know it isn't for lobbists money. He has done wonders for the Mass budget and Olympic budget. During debates he was the only one who seemed like he was being honest, but he still refused to answer questions like all candidates. I want to moderate a debate bacause I would slam everyone when they dont answer the question asked. That is my biggest pet peeve.
That ain't so. Campaign Finance Reform did nothing but make it much easier for incumbents to stay in power. That benefited McCain big time and he knew very well it would. Others of his votes benefited him in free publicity by an adoring press. It fueled his ego and banked good will with the press he planned on dipping into when he ran for president again.
As to all the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the far right punditry, they are just doing their jobs. They are still trying to influence events. They are sending signals to McCain as to the type of person he should make a running mate, insisting on firmer language on some of his positions and setting party platform planks. Just watch, most everyone of them will eventually come around. They won't withhold a vote for McCain and put a Dem in the White House. For even the most anti McCain conservative it will come down to war prosecution and better Supreme Court nominees then they will get from any Dem. The war and the Court.