Sam Nunn......the Southern strategy.
Win Georgia and North Carolina with several other potential states.
Eat a peach for peace!
I'm surprised you approve. He's almost as old as McCain. It would be an interesting strategy on Obama's part to tab someone who is admittedly more conservative as a veep, just so long as we don't wind up with another vice president running the country.
To save the party from a deep irreparable split, it better be offered to Clinton or all bets about being good Democrats are off.
I would like to see either Janet Napolitano or Kathleen Sebelius on the ticket, although that ticket might go down as the most un-pronouncable candidates ever. Hillary would be good, too. I wish Edwards were interested. I would also like to see Richards either as VP or in a high position.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
To save the party from a deep irreparable split, it better be offered to Clinton or all bets about being good Democrats are off.
Nope, Hillary as VP would mean she couldn't run for pres again until 2016. I don't think she's that patient.
If he wants to carry Texas, Oklahoma and perhaps a lot of the south western states, he could tack on Ron Paul.
My choice is Edwards.
I see the logic in offering Hillary the VP slot -- and why it could help mend fences (though HT, it's starting to sound like your fence may be unmendable). But she's just not a VP player, IMO. Apart from the guy currently holding the position, VP is second fiddle, and not necessarily for the better. Not that she couldn't fill out the role in her own way, but it would leave her leadership abilities mostly untapped.
I still think she could serve the party exceptionally well in the Senate; she has the ability to be a one of the pivotal members of the new Democratic majority (that is, if the sea change the numbers indicate turns out to be a real sea change). That's not to take away other opportunities to run for president, of course. I just think she's one of the strongest members of the Democratic team, and I'd hate to see her sidelined at VP for 4-8 yrs when she could be so crucial in another position.
With a slogan of "Change" he is going to have to go for someone substantially younger. A democrat version of Quayle maybe. I doubt there is any one on the short list that has a national prominence. It might very well be a woman, but one in her late 30's or early 40's. Someone like Lauren B. Goode of Ohio (a conservative rust belt state that would respond to Obama's populist message), or some other young Democrat. I really don't think it is necessary for Obama to cater to the deep south. Being black is going to carry a tremendous amount of weight with many southern voters, and when you couple that with the antipathy that McCain endures, I really do not see the south (with the possible exceptions of Texas and Florida) up for grabs.
I think a large midwest state, such as Ohio or Pennsylvania will supply the VP choice. If I were looking I would get someone clean, not a inside the beltway person, probably female, young (+-40), with a strong background of winning local and regional elections in their home state. Locking up a large blue collar state will do more than a regional choice like Sam Nunn.
He needs a VP that will win him Florida and Ohio. At least according to Realclearpolitics, Obama currently loses to Mccain in opinion polls. Clinton wins versus Mccain. I don't see Clinton playing VP, so I'm guessing it would have to be someone else. Hardly anything else matters, states like OK will still go for Mccain, states like CA will still go for Obama. Yet another year of listening to crap about "swing states" I'm afraid.
^^Having spent a substantial amount of time in Florida, it really concerns me that they would be the ones to decide who is president.
The way our system works now, there is no incentive for politicians to spend any time in states like Oklahoma. Instead, Ohio is bombarded to the point that they are sick of it. I think that we need to abolish the winner take all system at the national level.
On a side note, I hear Edwards is going to endorse Obama tonight.
He would be smart to choose Al Sharpton,that way nobody will want to assassinate him!
quote:
Originally posted by Goodpasture
With a slogan of "Change" he is going to have to go for someone substantially younger. A democrat version of Quayle maybe.
That brings back horrible memories. ((((shudder))) No thanks.
What was it with the Bushes and their veeps? One was a pinhead, and the other is no-good SOB.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/CNN_reports_on_formal_talks.html
"There's talks of vice presidency, and the Clinton sources say there would be "civil war" in the party if she wasn't offered the job."
I get the impression the Obama geniuses who got him to this point know Billary is not that important to their continued success. They got this far without her.
The witch has unleashed her bat rat spider monkeys.... She adds nothing to our party. Keep the Clinton's far from power. I look forward to Rudy taking her out of the Senate.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The witch has unleashed her bat rat spider monkeys.... She adds nothing to our party.
You are the problem FOTD. You make me ashamed to be a democrat.
I'll one up you RM, I am ashamed to be a human being.[:O]
BTW, still liken Nunn. Who else has military/foreign policy experience who can lock up several neccesary states?
Er, if we're really taking this topic seriously, I'm still pulling for Edwards. I don't know if he'd be a strategic fit, but he'd sure be a sentimental one. Jim Webb is another one. Both are southern white fellas who could bring in some crucial constituencies. I personally like 'em both because they're each unabashed populists.
Agreed. But Webb has stated he prefers to work the Senate....could be the guy who steps into Kennedy's place. Webb is terrific. Edwards said he won't do it again. Hated the Kerry deal. Posiible AG? Someone's got to clean up that justice mess. Wes Clark is another, an olive branch offered to those Clinton's....My personal favorite would be Biden. But that might not help the Southern strategy. But Biden might help in Penn. and Ohio. Nothing will help Florida.(Recount).
If the democrats can win back the south, they will be in charge of the house, the senate and the presidency for a generation.
I like the Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius, John Edwards and Joe Biden in that order.
I also think McCaskill would be a good choice. Edwards mentioned that he was interested in the Attorney General slot. I think that would be a good position for him (if not the Vice Presidency).
Who knows who she will pick.
From the talk this morning, Hillary has shut herself out of all possibility of being Veep with her Kennedy comment.
Colin Powell....That would do it.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Colin Powell....That would do it.
That would be a great ticket. Liberal Obama and Conservitive Powell. Would never happen, but if it did, it would be a freight train.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Colin Powell....That would do it.
That would be a great ticket. Liberal Obama and Conservitive Powell. Would never happen, but if it did, it would be a freight train.
Would be especially interesting if Obama was liberal and Powell was conservative. They are both pretty moderate by objective standards. Of course by Tulsa perspectives you are right.
You want liberal put Ted Kennedy on the ticket. You want conservative match him with Inhofe. Now that's an freight train wreck!
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Colin Powell....That would do it.
That would be a great ticket. Liberal Obama and Conservitive Powell. Would never happen, but if it did, it would be a freight train.
Would be especially interesting if Obama was liberal and Powell was conservative. They are both pretty moderate by objective standards. Of course by Tulsa perspectives you are right.
You want liberal put Ted Kennedy on the ticket. You want conservative match him with Inhofe. Now that's an freight train wreck!
Perhaps you are right, by Tulsa standards. Obama is averaging 10 billion in new promised programs per speech. He's at about 600,000,000,000 in new programs now, and by November he may reach 1,000,000,000,000 in nanny-state promises.
He's almost doubled the spending that Hillary promised, and she is considered significantly liberal. It's hard to compare him to Kennedy, unless you compare his published opinion on most bills. Kennedy voted over the last couple of years on a significant body of legislation. Obama has registered a "NOT VOTING" position on most bills. But, Obama's published opinions match Ted's almost exactly.
So if Ted is your barometer of "Liberal" than you should be happy that Mr. Obama is right there with him!. . . Just not in attendance for the vote. He's busy!
Oup! I just noticed on my RSS feed that he just made a 10 billion dollar housing bailout commitment.That must be today's 10 billion. [:D]
Does anyone really believe he's going to be able to spend like this?
Pander PANDER pander pan pan Pander.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Colin Powell....That would do it.
That would be a great ticket. Liberal Obama and Conservitive Powell. Would never happen, but if it did, it would be a freight train.
Would be especially interesting if Obama was liberal and Powell was conservative. They are both pretty moderate by objective standards. Of course by Tulsa perspectives you are right.
You want liberal put Ted Kennedy on the ticket. You want conservative match him with Inhofe. Now that's an freight train wreck!
Perhaps you are right, by Tulsa standards. Obama is averaging 10 billion in new promised programs per speech. He's at about 600,000,000,000 in new programs now, and by November he may reach 1,000,000,000,000 in nanny-state promises.
He's almost doubled the spending that Hillary promised, and she is considered significantly liberal. It's hard to compare him to Kennedy, unless you compare his published opinion on most bills. Kennedy voted over the last couple of years on a significant body of legislation. Obama has registered a "NOT VOTING" position on most bills. But, Obama's published opinions match Ted's almost exactly.
So if Ted is your barometer of "Liberal" than you should be happy that Mr. Obama is right there with him!. . . Just not in attendance for the vote. He's busy!
Oup! I just noticed on my RSS feed that he just made a 10 billion dollar housing bailout commitment.
That must be today's 10 billion. [:D]
Does anyone really believe he's going to be able to spend like this?
Pander PANDER pander pan pan Pander.
John McCain says a housing bailout is not justified.
Will our taxpayer dollars continue to go disproportionately to our military and defense as in the past? Or should it be redirected towards our needs here at home? Do we get the biggest bang for our buck overseas? Are we dumbing down our nation as our investment lacks little return.
Maybe such return to the citizenry is dependent on which leaders we place that will make our government by and for the people. The efforts to win votes, what you call pander, is normal in an election.
I think McCain is right on that. Why should we bail out people who purchased 10 times more home than they needed or could afford?
Why should be help the lenders responsible for inflating what we would call a $100,000 home to a $500,000 home on the West coast and then encouraging home-buyers to purchase with the promise of 20% artificial yearly appreciation?
If no one learns a lesson from this because Mommy government swoops in and bails you out, then we should just give up and let the government make home-buying decisions for everyone.
The greatest freedom we have is the freedom to fail!
When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both. – James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union
Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin. Bankruptcies and losses concentrate the mind on prudent behavior. – Allan H. Meltzer
The economic miracle that has been the United States was not produced by socialized enterprises, by government-unon-industry cartels or by centralized economic planning. It was produced by private enterprises in a profit-and-loss system. And losses were at least as important in weeding out failures, as profits in fostering successes. Let government succor failures, and we shall be headed for stagnation and decline. – Milton Friedman
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Perhaps you are right, by Tulsa standards. Obama is averaging 10 billion in new promised programs per speech. He's at about 600,000,000,000 in new programs now, and by November he may reach 1,000,000,000,000 in nanny-state promises.
You know what I think you need on your website? I think you need to have a big digital clock clicking along on the front page, like the Doomsday clock, or the National Debt clock, except you could call it the Nanny State Clock, and you could painstaking tally up all the governmental programs you personally find odious or wasteful or sinister or detrimental to the poor or whatever, and add them to the running total on the Nanny State Clock. If you could do that on your website it would be totally cool, because then it would be on your website, and I could visit only when I wanted to be clunked over the head repeatedly with libertarian axe grinding. Who knows? It might free you up to think more deeply about how modern democracy can work for the benefit of its citizens in a complex, global world!
quote:
Pander PANDER pander pan pan Pander.
Hey there. Looks like the Pander hand on your Nanny State clock is stuck.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/opinion/28dowd.html?ex=1212638400&en=9513526cb029970e&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Funny from Maureen today....
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Colin Powell....That would do it.
That would be a great ticket. Liberal Obama and Conservitive Powell. Would never happen, but if it did, it would be a freight train.
Would be especially interesting if Obama was liberal and Powell was conservative. They are both pretty moderate by objective standards. Of course by Tulsa perspectives you are right.
You want liberal put Ted Kennedy on the ticket. You want conservative match him with Inhofe. Now that's an freight train wreck!
Perhaps you are right, by Tulsa standards. Obama is averaging 10 billion in new promised programs per speech. He's at about 600,000,000,000 in new programs now, and by November he may reach 1,000,000,000,000 in nanny-state promises.
He's almost doubled the spending that Hillary promised, and she is considered significantly liberal. It's hard to compare him to Kennedy, unless you compare his published opinion on most bills. Kennedy voted over the last couple of years on a significant body of legislation. Obama has registered a "NOT VOTING" position on most bills. But, Obama's published opinions match Ted's almost exactly.
So if Ted is your barometer of "Liberal" than you should be happy that Mr. Obama is right there with him!. . . Just not in attendance for the vote. He's busy!
Oup! I just noticed on my RSS feed that he just made a 10 billion dollar housing bailout commitment.
That must be today's 10 billion. [:D]
Does anyone really believe he's going to be able to spend like this?
Pander PANDER pander pan pan Pander.
Make all the jokes you want. No one group can spend like the current bunch of Republicans. I doubt that Democrats can even come close to the spending levels of the Bush/Cheney conglomerate. They have already spent my kids education funds and my retirement. And they are still in office.
Gassy, you make me smile. Every election since I was a child in the I LIKE IKE era, I have heard about how Democrats are the big spenders and Liberals the biggest spenders of all. LBJ actually tried to live up to those blatherings. But it has been historically the Republican winners who have stolen the treasury. Very conservative Republicans. Nixon wasted tons of money by failing to pull out of Viet Nam when he knew it was done to save American face. Reagan opened the floodgates for debt. Bush I called it Voodoo economics then later embraced fiscal lunacy. Bush II made it seem patriotic.
I'm sorry. You have 0 credibility with me. You hear a proposal for a program to solve a problem and all you see is 100's of millions of expense with no plus side. Not too balanced an outlook. Do you prefer the current health system that keeps us just above third world status? Do you like the progress of the war? Well guess what, they are just proposals. Trial balloons. Prospective solutions. To you, seeking solutions is pandering. How enlightened. Very few of them from either candidate will ever get past preliminary congressional scrutiny. But it least Obama's thinking. When my good friend Jeff warned me in 1975 that Jimmy Carter's tax proposals would eliminate my home mortgage interest tax deductions, I was skeptical. So was congress. Took it off my taxes this year for the 31st year in a row.
Being so deep into Tulsa culture has narrowed your vision. Its time to come out of the closet Gas. Your no Libertarian. You hate Obama, you hate Hillary, but strangely McCain isn't mentioned much but with some reverence. Perhaps you think he's conservative too? Pish, posh.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I'm sorry. You have 0 credibility with me. You hear a proposal for a program to solve a problem and all you see is 100's of millions of expense with no plus side. Not too balanced an outlook. Do you prefer the current health system that keeps us just above third world status? Do you like the progress of the war? Well guess what, they are just proposals. Trial balloons. Prospective solutions. To you, seeking solutions is pandering. How enlightened. Very few of them from either candidate will ever get past preliminary congressional scrutiny. But it least Obama's thinking. When my good friend Jeff warned me in 1975 that Jimmy Carter's tax proposals would eliminate my home mortgage interest tax deductions, I was skeptical. So was congress. Took it off my taxes this year for the 31st year in a row.
Being so deep into Tulsa culture has narrowed your vision. Its time to come out of the closet Gas. Your no Libertarian. You hate Obama, you hate Hillary, but strangely McCain isn't mentioned much but with some reverence. Perhaps you think he's conservative too? Pish, posh.
Don't be silly. You know that 99% of the programs Obama and Hillary are proposing have absolutely no basis in reality and will never happen. They are just bribery for entitlement votes.
As for McCain, he is far too fiscally liberal and socially conservative for me, he represents very little of what I believe in, but he is simply the lesser of 3 evils. He too has programs, but most are based on economic growth rather than increased taxation and distribution of wealth.
I have no idea how or why you brought up Jimmy Carter. There is usually consensus on both the right and left that he was the biggest failure we have ever had for a leader, and he continues to undermine his country even after his administration. He almost created another depression. He refused to take serious action against Iran during the Ayatollah's revolution and we were thrown into agreements with OPEC that we will only recover from when we eliminate the laws that limit our own production. In essence, much of our current fuel problems are still the fault of this man!
Then he allowed hostages to be kept by Iran for over a year! All he would authorize was a minimal failed attempt (eagle claw) that killed 8 Marines because they were not allowed any military backup.
He was talk, talk, talk. Ronald Regan threatened Iran with Swift and devastating action once he was inaugurated if the hostages were not released. On fear of US action in the region, Algeria rushed an agreement between Iran and the US, and the hostages were released minutes after Regan's swearing in. That was the end of the Talk Era. Power was restored to the leadership of the US.
I don't know of anyone Dem, Repub, or Libertarian that would defend Carter. Most just want to forget. Nearly all of his policies were ineffective and caused a great deal of damage to our country. Don't use him as an example.
I didn't even mention his policy on the Soviets and Afghanistan that can be traced as the cause of much of the instability in that region that we are involved in now. Total inaction!
And. . . Stop insulting Tulsa! If you hate it so much, move!
I'm glad I make you smile though! [:D] I try to pump sunshine every day!
You're not any better at pumping sunshine than you are at rewriting history. I can smell a native Tulsan by their air of arrogance. You grew up believing that indoctrination and education are one and the same. And that is the real insult to Tulsa. By not seeing and questioning your own suppositions and what the frame of reference is they came from you have no problem swallowing the political crap you just vomited. You are exposed as a typical cloistered, suburban style, Republican in the greatest Tulsa tradition. Oil, real estate development, law and religion are the framework from which attitudes are formed here. And you are the result.
I considered answering your fictional recreation of the Carter administration, line by line, but really, what's the use? Its partisan crap at best and you wouldn't consider changing a word of it. Suffice it to say BushII will displace him as top of the list in anyone's top ten of failed, inept, incompetent presidential leadership.
Torn down any good historic buildings lately?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
You're not any better at pumping sunshine than you are at rewriting history. I can smell a native Tulsan by their air of arrogance. You grew up believing that indoctrination and education are one and the same. And that is the real insult to Tulsa. By not seeing and questioning your own suppositions and what the frame of reference is they came from you have no problem swallowing the political crap you just vomited. You are exposed as a typical cloistered, suburban style, Republican in the greatest Tulsa tradition. Oil, real estate development, law and religion are the framework from which attitudes are formed here. And you are the result.
I considered answering your fictional recreation of the Carter administration, line by line, but really, what's the use? Its partisan crap at best and you wouldn't consider changing a word of it. Suffice it to say BushII will displace him as top of the list in anyone's top ten of failed, inept, incompetent presidential leadership.
Torn down any good historic buildings lately?
Sorry you are so unhappy. Your view of Tulsa is really poor. I think this is one of the best cities in the country to live in, and I have lived in several.
You are correct that Tulsa has shaped my political views, as well as my views on family, and business. My life is happy and I give Tulsa quite a bit of credit for that. I have children and live within 2 miles of my parents and siblings.
As a family we participate in as many volunteer organizations as we can to help our community and the people in it. My friends and co-workers are from every place and every walk of life you can imagine. I see myself surrounded by diversity.
Having lived in San Diego, St. Louis and Oklahoma City, Tulsa is exceptionally friendly and affordable to all people. I take every chance I can to sing the praises of Tulsa and promote it to the people and businesses I serve.
Forums like this, or even your local bar serve as wonderful places for discussion about what's wrong and right about our community. But from a political standpoint, I find that most successful communities lean towards conservative values. That's just simply the way it works and I know it must be frustrating for some.
If you review communities that are growing as opposed to communities that are shrinking, you typically find that the influx takes place in the more conservative cities where financial freedom, civil freedom, and business growth are encouraged. Lower taxes and less government regulation always promotes growth and prosperity. There's just no way of getting around that.
Even when it comes to countries, liberal policy simply does not work. France has been on the verge of fiscal collapse. They just announced that they are taking emergency steps to lower taxes and save their economy.
It's not that Liberal philosophies are flawed, it's that people are flawed! Most people have the internal belief that they are different, special, and capable of great things. They express this through their desire to succeed, and their individual definitions of success. What a wonderful flaw!
When Liberal philosophy attempts to punish success, or elevate mediocrity, through taxation, regulation, and sometimes education, most people will flee that situation.
The greatest thing about sharing your success is that you have the freedom to choose who you share with. Your expertise, your time, your money, and your soul are all things that you may exercise freedom over. Wether conscious or unconscious, people will attempt to flee a system that takes from them to give to others without choice. It's as simple as that.
No! It's not fair. The only fair thing in life is freedom and your ability to exercise it. Community, government, religion, and even nature are incapable of being fair. All they represent is FORCE.
What is freedom? Freedom is the right to choose; the right to create for yourself the alternative of choice. Without the responsibility and exercise of choice a man is not a man but a member, an instrument, a thing. – Archibald Macleish (1882-1982)Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. – George Washington
This struggle between water(boy) and gas(par) is making it muggy for the rest of us.
It is not the heat, but the humility.
I will give truce. I thought it was a good discussion. WB makes some good points. I appreciate his willingness to debate them.
"If you hate it move" is such a weak argument.
"Wherever you go, there you are...."
No truce necessary. I love Tulsa too. But we don't all see her in the same way. After having spent most of my life here I feel comfortable in noting the hypocrisy, irony and provincialism so easily found here. Its a gift. Yet something keeps me here. Maybe it is the struggle to open the eyes of those who cannot see what I see! Talk about hubris.
I suppose Canada and the Scandinavian countries didn't make your list of Liberal societies that have flourished, along with Minnesota of course. And the real irony of your statement is that America was founded on the writings of John Locke and other renaissance gentry who were the original Liberals. His writings were well known to the signers of the Declaration. Locke and others were often imprisoned for championing the very principals we cherish.
Anyway the thread is about VP's. I see no real gain from signing a philosphical opposite to a ticket. Historically, Kennedy/LBJ is the only winner there I can remember.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both. – James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to the point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That is in essence fascism: ownership of the government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power. - FDRJames Dale Davidson is a greedy, corrupt little Republican propagandist slimebucket traitor who should be in jail after making tons of $$$ from fraudulant offshore penny stocks. - USRufnex quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin. Bankruptcies and losses concentrate the mind on prudent behavior. – Allan H. Meltzer
"It's the same looser laissez-faire ideology that produced the Great Depression. The free market is a wonderful thing, but it functions well only within a nest of law and regulation. When those who are regulated by the government buy the government, the people get screwed." Molly Ivinsquote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
The economic miracle that has been the United States was not produced by socialized enterprises, by government-unon-industry cartels or by centralized economic planning. It was produced by private enterprises in a profit-and-loss system. And losses were at least as important in weeding out failures, as profits in fostering successes. Let government succor failures, and we shall be headed for stagnation and decline. – Milton Friedman
Why don't the convservative elite like right wing economist Milton Friedman get taken to task the same way the so-called "liberal elite" are demonized...???
"The high rate of unemployment among teenagers, and especially black teenagers, is both a scandal and a serious source of social unrest. Yet it is largely a result of minimum wage laws. We regard the minimum wage law as one of the most, if not the most, antiblack laws on the statute books." - Milton FriedmanSo hey.... in the NINE years and three months from 1981 to 1990, how did the minimum wage freeze benefit teenagers, "especially black teenagers" or other low wage workers???... how 'bout that other attempt to undermine the minimum wage in this past decade?
http://www.cbpp.org/6-20-06mw.htm
The lack of action on the minimum wage has led to a dramatic erosion in its value.
The minimum wage now equals only 31 percent of the average wage for private sector, nonsupervisory workers. This is the lowest share since at least the end of World War II.
Since September 1997, the purchasing power of the minimum wage has deteriorated by 20 percent. After adjusting for inflation, the value of the minimum wage is at its lowest level since 1955.
The decline in the value of the minimum wage is part and parcel of a disturbing feature of the recovery from the 2001 recession: its failure to significantly improve the well-being of most workers. Instead, the benefits of our impressive productivity growth rates have largely flowed to those at the top of the income and wealth scale.BUT KEEP TAKIN UP FOR AMERICA'S TRUST FUND BABIES AND THEIR SPECIAL RIGHTS... [;)]
Oh! Boy!
quote:
Originally posted by joiei
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Colin Powell....That would do it.
That would be a great ticket. Liberal Obama and Conservitive Powell. Would never happen, but if it did, it would be a freight train.
Would be especially interesting if Obama was liberal and Powell was conservative. They are both pretty moderate by objective standards. Of course by Tulsa perspectives you are right.
You want liberal put Ted Kennedy on the ticket. You want conservative match him with Inhofe. Now that's an freight train wreck!
Perhaps you are right, by Tulsa standards. Obama is averaging 10 billion in new promised programs per speech. He's at about 600,000,000,000 in new programs now, and by November he may reach 1,000,000,000,000 in nanny-state promises.
He's almost doubled the spending that Hillary promised, and she is considered significantly liberal. It's hard to compare him to Kennedy, unless you compare his published opinion on most bills. Kennedy voted over the last couple of years on a significant body of legislation. Obama has registered a "NOT VOTING" position on most bills. But, Obama's published opinions match Ted's almost exactly.
So if Ted is your barometer of "Liberal" than you should be happy that Mr. Obama is right there with him!. . . Just not in attendance for the vote. He's busy!
Oup! I just noticed on my RSS feed that he just made a 10 billion dollar housing bailout commitment.
That must be today's 10 billion. [:D]
Does anyone really believe he's going to be able to spend like this?
Pander PANDER pander pan pan Pander.
Make all the jokes you want. No one group can spend like the current bunch of Republicans. I doubt that Democrats can even come close to the spending levels of the Bush/Cheney conglomerate. They have already spent my kids education funds and my retirement. And they are still in office.
From a life-long Republican, unfortunately you are entirely correct.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Anyway the thread is about VP's. I see no real gain from signing a philosphical opposite to a ticket. Historically, Kennedy/LBJ is the only winner there I can remember.
And we all know what a disaster the LBJ presidency was.
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Anyway the thread is about VP's. I see no real gain from signing a philosphical opposite to a ticket. Historically, Kennedy/LBJ is the only winner there I can remember.
And we all know what a disaster the LBJ presidency was.
Which doesn't knock the "team of rivals" concept so much as the fact LBJ was a Texan.
We've had three Texans in the White House, and all of them have sucked.
No more 'Horns in the Oval Office, please.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/01/obama_met_with_powell_in_june.html
Obama Met with Powell in June
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Colin Powell....That would do it.
INTERESTING!
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1530
"UTICA, New York - As the Presidential candidates ponder potential running mates, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows many voters would be more inclined to vote for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama if he were to select retired four-star general and former Secretary of State Colin Powell as his running-mate."[8D]
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Colin Powell....That would do it.
INTERESTING!
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1530
"UTICA, New York - As the Presidential candidates ponder potential running mates, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows many voters would be more inclined to vote for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama if he were to select retired four-star general and former Secretary of State Colin Powell as his running-mate."[8D]
How about an older, white conservative-to-moderate Southerner as Barack Hussein Obama's VP?
Probably a governor.
To balance the ticket.
[:X]