With McCain’s likely insurmountable delegate lead, lets start considering possible running mates
Who should we rule out? I’d start by lining out Huckabee. He’s been useful to McCain thus far, but I don’t think McCain is going to feel beholdened to him. He would encourage the evangelical base, but in many ways he’s more liberal than McCain, and he’s certainly not qualified to be CinC in the event something were to happen to McCain before the end of his term and I think that is McCain’s over-riding consideration.
I also don’t think he will pick a Senate colleague since he’s not widely liked there, and the Senate has not been much of a springboard to the WH anyway.
I’m thinking its going to be one of the big-state Governors that have endorsed him. But only one of them really adds strength to the ticket — Charlie Crist of Florida.
He’s popular in Florida and would likely keep Florida in the GOP column against Clinton. Against Obama its more of a toss-up since Obama will drive AA turnout in Florida in a general election.
But Crist also brings some geographic balance — while McCain is a Senator from a western state, given his political history he could just as easily be considered a Senator from Conn. or NY. His own record is all he needs to be competitive in the NE. If he can’t do it on the back of his own political history, a running mate from the NE isn’t going to help him.
Does Crist do anything for the conservative base? I’m not too sure about that.
I’m sorry I posted at the same time as your post, especially since your post is more timely and interesting.
I wish McCain would pick Fred Thompson but I doubt he will, although I’m not convinced he won’t pick someone from the Senate. I agree he needs someone from the South. He might even go with a woman, which is why some are speculating about Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. I hope McCain picks someone who brings something to the ticket for conservatives.
DRJ (517d26) — 2/6/2008 @ 11:34 amIf McCain picks Crist, Huck can help out by telling his supporters it’s the closest thing to voting for Jesus.
L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf) — 2/6/2008 @ 11:35 amGood one.
DRJ (517d26) — 2/6/2008 @ 11:37 amOf course, picking Crist would open up 2000 recount wounds. Remember how the Dems made so much of GWB’s remarks about how brother Jeb assured him he would win Florida.
L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf) — 2/6/2008 @ 11:39 amIdeally you’d find someone in a swing state who also brings to the table strong immigration credentials.
I’m not sure Crist does that. And rumors (and they’re just that, rumors) about his possible homosexuality certainly would drive some away from Crist.
Michael Steele? Tim Pawlenty?
Between the value in picking a solid conservative with immigration credentials or a candidate from a swing state, the former is probably more important.
That may lead you to Tom Coburn.
wt (ca1cea) — 2/6/2008 @ 11:55 amMitt Romney.
It would make McCain gag, I don’t much care for the idea myself, but if he can placate the right flank without causing McCain any damage in the center he would be a logical pick. It remains to be seen at this time how much of his support was based on him or the fact that he was the not McCain. Early on, I was thinking it was the latter, but his more conservative supporters have become completely uncritical of him in the past few weeks, so who knows.
Sean P (e57269) — 2/6/2008 @ 11:56 amHow about Tom Coburn or Elizabeth Dole?
Dole is a year older than McCain, Coburn is only 60. Both are conservative.
voiceofreason2 (10af7e) — 2/6/2008 @ 11:57 amMitt Romney would be the worst possible choice of a Vice-Presidential candidate since Curtis LeMay.
You’d attract the anti-Mormon sentiment. You’d have to explain his flip-flips since 2002 on abortion, 1994 on gays and Reagan, in the last 4 months on guns, and his comments in the last week on McCain’s liberalism.
Then, once you did that, you’d have none of the good qualities of Mitt Romney. He’s good at running things. But the Vice-President doesn’t run anything (other than the Senate) or do anything.
He’s good at fiscal responsibility and the economy — two areas where the Vice-President has almost no authority. And he’s good on national security — which is the one area where we all agree McCain is already adequate on.
And you suffer the opportunity cost of picking someone better. So there are few positives, and several negatives. Given that balance, I think it would be a bad idea.
wt (ca1cea) — 2/6/2008 @ 12:10 pmI just don’t see Coburn — but he could certainly be HHS Secretary with his medical background. Imagine him shaking up the bureaucracy.
But he would be lightning rod for the left of the Dem party, and McCain doesn’t need him on the question of pork-barrel spending — that was McCain’s first maverick position.
I still think its going to be a governor — but someone who will put a lot of electoral votes in McCain’s pocket, or someone who will bring the conservative base along.
WLS (68fd1f) — 2/6/2008 @ 12:16 pmI agree with your comments about Crist, but I think your final caveat — that it is at best dubious whether Crist (who endorsed McCain) really shores up McCain’s right flank or otherwise helps McCain with disappointed conservatives — will ultimately disqualify Crist, if McCain is shrewd.
Ideally, McCain must pick someone with three or four qualities, besides the obvious ones such as “no skeletons”:
1. Young, but not too young. McCain would be the oldest President in history. That is going to be an issue in the general election.
This factor obviously bodes poorly for a Thompson pick. Thompson is 65 and looks it; and, rightly or wrongly (I think wrongly), the CW on Thompson was that he lacked energy and seemed, well, old.
It’s also a negative for Bobby Jindal, albeit unfairly, in my opinion.
It’s good for DeMint, Cornyn, Romney and Huckabee, among others, of course (off the cuff, here).
2. Well-regarded by the “Stop McCain!” conservatives in the GOP.
This is a big negative for Huckabee and certainly for Lindsay Graham. Good for DeMint, Thompson, Romney.
3. Specifically to McCain’s right on Amnesty, Judges, early support for Bush’s tax cuts, and Gore-Bal Warming. (I suppose you could also call this “2a.”) These issues are McCain’s substantive sore spots to many conservatives; they cannot as much fault him on the Iraq war and on earmarks.
4. Popular in a SWING state. It does little for the ticket if the VP is from deeply blue or deeply red state. Mind you, I think this is the easily the least important factor here.
This is a negative for Jim DeMint (SC), John Cornyn (TX), Tom Coburn (OK), Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney (MA/ MI). It’s a positive for Bobby Jindal (LA), but as others have pointed out, Jindal may actually be TOO young/ new and provide TOO much contrast with the venerable McCain.
That’s a quick and dirty take, anyway.
Mitch (890cbf) — 2/6/2008 @ 12:28 pmI don’t want Crist to be his running mate, for a purely selfish reason: I’m a Floridian, and he’s a good governor. I want him where he is right now. Plus, being McCain’s running mate will end up ruining his chance to run for the White House in his own right, even if McCain does win in November. He deserves a chance on his own merits, and not bogged down by other people’s demerits.
One negative against him is that he’s not really a social conservative. In the Republican primary he actually beat the religious right candidate, and unlike Jeb! Bush, he’s avoided most of the social issues, and is more of a populist (think Huckabee without the gospel and without the Fair Tax). Florida being Florida, he’s probably too moderate on immigration to be acceptable to those for whom immigration matters. (Although that’s just a guess: I don’t know his actual stance on the issue, but in a state with as many immigrants as we have, any politician perceived as anti immigrant would not last long.)
Jeb Bush himself might not be a bad pick–definitely a conservative, and fairly good as governor (better executive record than his brother, at least)–and the Bush name would certainly energize some Republican voters (downside–it would also energize some Democratic voters)–but I suspect neither Jeb nor McCain would be interested in the idea.
kishnevi (fc6894) — 2/6/2008 @ 1:07 pmHunter would be an interesting strategic pick if the point was to cause extra spending to defend a blue state.
Jindal could be viable in 2012 and beyond. He needs to prove himself here in Louisiana first. On the ground it appears that several military projects and programs are getting pushed to Louisiana since his election – I don’t think that is a coincidence – he is being given some positives to work with from the start.
voiceofreason2 (10af7e) — 2/6/2008 @ 1:10 pmSomeday it may be Obama vs Jindal. Wouldn’t that be interesting?
DRJ (517d26) — 2/6/2008 @ 1:14 pmI don’t expect him to tap anyone conservative at all. Why would he? He’ll have won the nomination without conservatives, and he doesn’t like us.
So I’d expect him to tap a moderate to liberal Republican from the northeast, to provide some geographic balance.
Skip (ba6438) — 2/6/2008 @ 1:15 pmLike Giuliani or someone lower profile?
DRJ (517d26) — 2/6/2008 @ 1:15 pmIf Hillary is the opponent, Michael Steele is a winning pick. First and foremost, he’s actually a conservative which might turn out some of those conservatives who don’t think they can hold their noses tight enough to vote for McCain. Secondly, he’ll blunt a lot of the identity politics that you know the Clintons can’t wait to get back to. He’ll also add a history making changeyness aspect to the McCain campaign.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/6/2008 @ 1:16 pmYes, very much so.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/6/2008 @ 1:17 pmGiuliani would be a good man to fill that. He’s got good national name recognition, and would likely draw a lot of votes in the northeastern states. Even if the Repblicans don’t take those states in the general election, the Dems would have to spend a lot of resources playing defense there.
Giuliani’s got a lot more credibility on terrorism and national defense than either Hillary or Obama.
Like ’em or not, McCain/Giuliani would present a heavyweight ticket. It’s not the perfect ticket for conservatives, it’s just better than the alternatives.
Steverino (e00589) — 2/6/2008 @ 1:33 pmI’d be okay with it but I think you could kiss the social conservative vote good-bye.
DRJ (517d26) — 2/6/2008 @ 1:34 pmSomeday it may be Obama vs Jindal. Wouldn’t that be interesting?
It would be very interesting I think.
If Hillary is the opponent, Michael Steele is a winning pick.
I disagree. I think it would be as transparent as it is ineffective. Had Steele run in the primaries I’d buy your theory.
voiceofreason2 (10af7e) — 2/6/2008 @ 1:39 pmIf the GOP is smart (heh!) they will leave Bobby Jindal where he is, let him turn Louisiana around (if it’s possible), and let him lay groundwork for a future run. Hopefully, he will keep his principles throughout that time, and will not reveal character flaws like not being able to hold his tongue (George Allen) or letting his little head do the thinking (Newt Gingrich).
L.N. Smithee (0931d2) — 2/6/2008 @ 1:41 pmSteele would be transparent. But Colin Powell would not be. Does nothing (good) for the base, of course.
But if Hillary manages to beat Obama in a highly contested and Clintonesque manner (i.e. dirty, underhanded and deceitful), it would be strategic for the Republicans to attempt to peel disaffected African-Americans off from the Democratic coalition.
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 2/6/2008 @ 1:47 pmSomeday it may be Obama vs Jindal. Wouldn’t that be interesting?
If Jindal has success in LA (that is, of course, Louisiana, not Los Angeles for you folks in Rio Linda) he could be unstoppable. Remember, the only device local Democrats had to try to stop Jindal from being elected governor in a landslide was to create an astonishingly specious argument that he — a practicing Catholic — was bigoted against Protestants. Even the national DNC had to denounce that smear tactic.
L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf) — 2/6/2008 @ 1:49 pmMcCain is pro-life, which would matter a lot to the social conservatives. I think it’s a better appeal to fiscal conservatives and defense-minded Republicans and independents than the alternatives.
I think the social conservative base could be energized by the thought of Hillary as President.
Steverino (e00589) — 2/6/2008 @ 1:50 pmBut if Hillary manages to beat Obama in a highly contested and Clintonesque manner (i.e. dirty, underhanded and deceitful), it would be strategic for the Republicans to attempt to peel disaffected African-Americans off from the Democratic coalition.
I think the best the GOP could do is to open the dialog with the black community without making it primarily a come vote for us effort.That is transparent also. Make the first overtures in a long overdue strategy to attract black citizens to the party. May not play much in the 08 election but lays the seeds for future contests.
voiceofreason2 (10af7e) — 2/6/2008 @ 1:53 pmI say Huck gets veto power over the VP pick, although not getting it himself.
Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9) — 2/6/2008 @ 2:12 pmafter all the bad things patterico’s said (rightly) about mccain, i’m wondering if he’s gonna suck it up and beat the mccain drum once mccain is nominated.
assistant devil's advocate (9b99f2) — 2/6/2008 @ 2:17 pmWhy would it be transparent, or any more transparent than Obama running? Steele was highlighted at the 2004 convention and is currently running GOPAC. And he’s a conservative, something the ticket could sorely use. And there seems to be a strong desire for fresh faces, and Steele is one. He’d also balance the ticket in a Washington insider/outsider sense.
You’ll notice that the last guy elected to that office never ran. And the guy before that was not picked from the field of primary candidates either.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/6/2008 @ 2:26 pmI’m amazed that virtually nobody is considering Mitt Romney. To me, that is by far the most logical choice to sure up the base, since the conservative wing of the party seems to have accepted Romney as a conservative. No, he doesn’t help with the evangelical vote, but if the Republican candidate has trouble in the deep south where the evangelical vote is strongest, then the candidate’s got bigger problems.
A.S. (09b2d3) — 2/6/2008 @ 2:47 pmCosidering that Huck is basicly working for McCain as it is, I don’t see how he’s not already been promised the VP slot…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 2/6/2008 @ 2:47 pmAS, the way Romney and McCain have gone at it, I find that offer unlikely.
I’m not sure Romney would even accept it.
Hell, were I him, I would publicly turn it down.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 2/6/2008 @ 2:48 pm# 29.
See my comment, #8, on Romney. Clearly a bad choice I think, given that there are other options.
And I agree with #31 that Romney probably wouldn’t accept it anyway.
wt (ca1cea) — 2/6/2008 @ 3:00 pm#28,
Obama is running for the top of the ticket – not being inserted in the bottom as a “convenient” after thought. Putting Steele or any other black that the GOP has not elevated to national prominence as the VP is transparent – just not to you.
voiceofreason2 (d1e1bb) — 2/6/2008 @ 3:16 pmVOR2 (and others)–what about a certain lady who is now serving in the capacity of Sec’y of State?
kishnevi (b0fbc5) — 2/6/2008 @ 3:38 pmAh, but Steele is nationally prominent. Convention speech, GOPAC Chair, a solid Senate run (though it was doomed from the start in blue, blue Maryland) and lots of spots on Fox News.
But tell me, when is a VP pick anything but a convenient afterthought? You’re always looking for someone who can pull in the votes you won’t get by yourself. You’re looking for ideological strengths you don’t necessarily have, regional affiliations you don’t have, etc. But you don’t go into a Presidential race thinking “Man, I just can’t wait to pick X as my Veep!”
Pablo (99243e) — 2/6/2008 @ 3:44 pm#9: Other than your comment that Romney would be the worst VP nominee since Curtis LeMay (John Edwards, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Geraldine Ferraro, Spiro Agnew, Walter Mondale, Mr. electroshock therapy and Mr. “Who am I — what am I doing here?” would easily beat Romney for that “honor”) I think your arguments against him are solid, and I share them as well.
Still, his one benefit is that the people in the party who hate McCain the most like Romney, and if he can carry that goodwill to a McCain ticket as the nominee he is worth all of the negatives you correctly sited.
Sean P (e57269) — 2/6/2008 @ 3:46 pmInteresting idea kishnevi (#34), but I have the feeling that any major player in the Bush Administration will be dismissed out-of-hand.
Rick Santorum would be a homerun for McCain.
JVW (b03dfa) — 2/6/2008 @ 3:47 pmI was thinking Santorum, but he just came out hard for Romney. Is Brownback the equivalent of a Santorum?
What about bypassing Huckabee and just going with Chuck Norris. Pat Sajak maybe?
wt (ca1cea) — 2/6/2008 @ 3:53 pmVOR, are you saying that the Veep nominee must be selected from primary participants to be viable, or that Steele must be excluded from consideration because he’s black?
Pablo (99243e) — 2/6/2008 @ 3:56 pmVeep: yes to Romney, or kishnevi’s suggestion of Dr. Rice.
Vermont Neighbor (c6313b) — 2/6/2008 @ 4:00 pmI don’t think it matters that Santorum endorsed Romney; in fact, I think it helps. McCain gets someone with a philosophy similar to Romney’s without having to deal with the guy himself, who he probably loathes. Conservatives are happy because he helps resurrect Santorum’s political career, Santorum provides a geographic balance, and he is still young (at least in political terms). I think this is about as good as McCain can do.
JVW (b03dfa) — 2/6/2008 @ 4:00 pmkishnevi: VOR2 (and others)–what about a certain lady who is now serving in the capacity of Sec’y of State?
As brilliant as Condi Rice is, she’s tainted by her Bush insider status. It would give fuel to the opposition already revved-up about “change.” She won’t be a viable candidate until/unless the G.W. Bush foreign policy pays tangible dividends, a la how Reagan’s policies led to the fall of the Soviet empire after he was termed out.
And don’t forget that black Republicans are not — in the eyes of those still living at Andrew Jackson’s Plantation — really black. Remember how New Jersey’s black poet laureate got away with calling Rice a “skeez[er]” and the deafening silence of liberals when fourth-rate cartoonist Ted Rall referred to Rice as “Bush’s House N—a.”
Let me interject at this point that I am a black man, and that I left the plantation many years ago.
L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf) — 2/6/2008 @ 4:10 pmRick Santorum would be a homerun for McCain.
Santorum wants no part of McCain. He was on fire on both Ingraham and Hannity announcing his support for Romney, telling both that a higher-up in the McCain campaign smirked “We beat you!” after his New Hampshire victory. Inquiring as to who “he” was that got “beat,” the answer was conservatives.
L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf) — 2/6/2008 @ 4:14 pmYep. Not gonna happen. Ron Paul, anyone? That’s more likely than Santorum.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/6/2008 @ 4:19 pmSantorum, whom I really like, doesn’t seem to have a whole lot of options for a return to politics, unless he thinks he’ll be elected governor. I think he would be smart enough to take the VP slot if offered.
JVW (b03dfa) — 2/6/2008 @ 4:33 pm#41 JVW:
Ok, you convinced me. I’m on board. Santorum is actually a pretty good choice for VP.
Barring, of course, any big time quotes from the last 2 weeks where he said something that he can’t back off of.
wt (ca1cea) — 2/6/2008 @ 4:45 pmI think he’ll pick Lindsay Graham. I think that’s far from the best available pick — either from the standpoint of the GOP’s prospective success in November or my own preferences — but I think it’s the one McCain will make.
Graham is younger, Southern, a military lawyer (whose views have been consistent with McCain’s), and a longtime loyal McCain minion. McCain will insist that Graham ought to be acceptable to movement conservatives (whether he is or not). As one of the former House managers for Bill Clinton’s impeachment, he will be expected resume his 1998 role as attack-dog versus Billary.
It definitely will not be John Cornyn. (That made me laugh, notwithstanding Cornyn’s recent and very gracious comment to the effect that as a professional, he’s not going to let past flareups with McCain dictate his future electoral or legislative actions.) Kay Bailey’s already planning for a run at the Governor’s Mansion. If McCain were to pick a Texan, it would be Gov. Rick Perry, who’s salivating for the spot. But picking a Texan makes no electoral sense — if the GOP can’t win here without a native son, the party is in serious, serious trouble, and I think there’s some sentiment from both sides of the aisle that Texas has already had more than its share of POTUS and VPOTUS representation lately.
Beldar (3df1f4) — 2/6/2008 @ 4:49 pmI think Lindsay Graham might very well be the Attorney General in a McCain Administration.
But I don’t think he does much for the ticket.
Though he is southern, he’s always been closely aligned with McCain.
And I don’t think he’s conservative enough to rally conservatives to McCain.
WLS (68fd1f) — 2/6/2008 @ 4:57 pmThe shame of that episode was, Vice Admiral James Stockdale (may the man rest in peace) was intended as a way of introducing himself to a country that largely didn’t know him, and explain why he deserved to be standing on that stage.
Man spent 7 years as a POW at the Hoa La prison, and ended up with the Medal of Honor…
Don’t lump him next to Gore, Edwards, or even Cheney. They all wish they were half the human being Stockdale was.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 2/6/2008 @ 5:13 pmPatterico: I have a question unrelated to this post. Does the Constitution explicitly state that the burden of proof rests on the accuser? If so, where?
Actually, I have another question: Have you ever heard of the Tugwell Constitution? If so, what do you think of it?
Leviticus (16711f) — 2/6/2008 @ 5:49 pmI’ll throw in Liz Cheney as a possible choice.
syn (95c574) — 2/6/2008 @ 6:09 pm“Gore, Edwards, or even Cheney… all wish they were half the human being Stockdale was.”
Sean P (e57269) — 2/6/2008 @ 6:23 pmAgreed completely. But the fact remains he gave one of the worst debate performance in VP debate history.
The Next Mass Extinction: Also Bush’s Fault???
Topics: Political News and commentaries
I have been away from commenting and publishing on Hyscience and elsewhere for a while, because I have been too busy putting my life together, overcoming a crippling medical condition, and once again getting myself, as they say, “a life”, and had, besides, grown nauseous and disgusted with politics, and the banal, and fickle, electorate responsible for electing such as Reid, Pelosi, and their ilk, to lead us in one of the most crucial times, not only in our country’s, but the world’s history, and simply decided to walk away from it all.
But after being bombarded daily with an obscene amount of absurdity, outright madness, and blatantly open demagogic pro-democrat leftist propaganda, from “Wolfie” and his colleagues at CNN, the MSM, and the rest of the out of control “liberal” media, openly rooting for the democrats, witnessing the virtual deification of Obama (ironically from otherwise secular and godless people), and the moral political bankruptcy of the American populace, I can no longer hold myself back; specially after I happened upon a supposedly apolitical “science” program on the Science channel yesterday (which I had now chosen to watch to avoid the current political fray), with the added “straw that broke this camel’s back” when perusing through the posts on Hyscience, I found of our friend KW’s comments in response to a criticism of Obama, all because someone had the audacity to say Obama was all fluff with no substance, quote:
“Fluff and no substance”
I thought you were talking about our current president. A failed governor and head of two failed businesses.
But I was wrong.
Idiot.
Posted by: KW at February 3, 2008 7:24 PM
Of course, anyone who dares question the “divinity” of Obama, must be an “idiot”, or part of the dastardly “Hillary Great Conservative Conspiracy”!
It is a sad fact of our present days that everything seems to have been inexorably politicized – from politically correct toys such as “Dora,” being marketed by a major toy manufacturer towards the illegal aliens now spilling out of control over our borders and swarming us out of existence us a nation – from south of the border (¡Viva Aztlan!), to gay Teletubbies and lesbian rabbits on PBS, to the forced indoctrination that most of our children endure in the educational system of our country – which has politicized everything from science to medicine in the academic realm, and notably turned our universities into nothing but hot-beds of anti-social, anarchic, radical ideology.
It is also a known fact that it is a firmly held belief of liberals, the democrats, “greenies”, and the generally deranged, that all the world’s ills and woe’s are president Bush’s fault; from Al Gore’s greenhouse gases (which I would venture would be drastically reduced if he shot his mealy mouth up and stopped spewing so much pseudo- scientific “hot air” into the atmosphere) , to endemic world poverty, hunger, and even contagious diseases, such as AIDS, as if natural causes, human nature, institutionalized ignorance, and – in the case of AIDS the engaging in the risky, unnatural, and morally reprehensible behavior which first helped spread it throughout the world – were not to blame, had no bearing, or simply did not exist.
But when I saw on the science channel yesterday a supposedly bonafide scientist discussing past mass extinctions imply, following the now in vogue Al Gore mantra everyone repeats like mindless automata, that global warming and present changes in weather patterns are not the result of natural fluctuations, but rather the end result of present political policies – I.E. the evil Bush administration – and saw her imply that there may occur as a result another “mass extinction” and that in her estimation it would take the planet 10 million years to recover, practicall implying it was Bush’s fault, I gagged, I simply had too much… and was reminded by such lunacy that, to quote Socrates: “Too much of anything is too much for me.”
My God! How consequential can any human being be, least of all president Bush, in the scheme of things of the planet, that now it turns out Bush is not only the “devil” – as Hugo Chavez (that friend of liberals, democrats, anarchist, commies, geriatric hippies, and social misfits in general) so theatrically proclaimed at the United Nations sulphur and all (even though by following Castro’s example, and even though Venezuela is oil rich, inflation is paradoxically the highest it has ever been in that country’s history, and just as in Cuba, the inevitable “Marxist” food shortages and the hunger of the populace, even for the most basic foodstuff, has already begun), but is responsible for the next “mass extinction” on the planet too?!?! Aside from all the other ills of the world religiously assigned to him by liberal loons ?!?! Get real! I can just picture the archeologists of an alien race (no, not the illegal Mexicans) visiting our planet pondering over the remnants of our long-gone civilization about what cataclysmic disaster doomed our civilizationt and brought about the mass extinction of most life on our globe…and Bush is to blame?!?!
Imagine that! After a rocky and somewhat inconsequential presidency, as a result of being overly conciliatory with democratic mad dogs and his lack of backbone in standing up to democrats in general, Bush would be up there with the meteor that hit the Yucatan peninsula (what a coincidence, Mexican from south of the border too?) that made the dinosaurs extinct, and the volcanic planetary upheavals of the Pre-Cambrian that wiped most of life on the planet, as one of the “Forces of Nature” (and without the help of Sandra Bullock at that) that shaped the face of our planet! Seriously now, liberal demagogues give Bush too much credit by using him as a scapegoat for just about everything! Beam me up Scotty, this is really getting ridiculous!
But then, here we are about to choose our next leader, and Hillary proclaims: “The age of ‘Cowboy Diplomacy’ is over” and one must ask, to be replaced by what???…More of the same failed Clinton “Age of Whoring Diplomacy” that once left Osama Bin Laden unfettered to eventually carry out 9/11?!?! And what about a totally inexperienced and unqualified man,”deified” by the Kennedys and the liberals to be some new “Black Messiah” harbinger of change, simply because he’s part black (no one ever brings up Obama’s sinister “White Devil” ancestry, much less speak of his mother’s illness: “Jungle Fever”), and because he has the uncanny ability to be “articulate” (an ability much resented by Reverend Sharpton and other black luminaries), and speaks proper English and not “Ebonics”…well, at least publicly?!?!
And then, we have the inbred Southern Governor, all “Provincial” and quaint, who boycotted a whole Island nation and intended to destroy its economy, and wreak vengeance on its innocent people, Aruba, all because of the disappearance of a teenage “Girl Gone Wild” set loose on the island, with unlimited booze, drugs, and unfettered gonads at her disposal, by an irresponsible, attention grubbing, media whoring, mother, hell-bent to be herself on the limelight and the center of attention?!?!
The choices are indeed bleak, when someone who’s backstabbed Republicans and conservatives time and again, John McCain, seems to many conservatives the only viable option as the lesser of all evils!
It is a sad day indeed, when the choices the electorate of this nation, in its ignorance, banality, and fickleness, has brought upon itself, is that between such as “Huckleberry Hound” Huckabee, McCain a political backstabber who’s often sided with the democrats and whose sell-out immigration policy would be a disaster for our nation, Obama a man with no merits other than being able to speak in other than Ebonics, and a woman who has not even been able to make her marriage work as a wife…much less preside over a nation!
From a post at Hyscience: http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/02/the_next_mass_e.php
Althor
Althor (56a0a8) — 2/6/2008 @ 7:40 pmLeviticus #50,
Go here. And no quibbling — U.S. Supreme Court opinions are the Constitution.
nk (4ebdf4) — 2/6/2008 @ 7:56 pmAgainst Obama, Bobby Jindal would be a good choice. He’s a solid conservative wunderkind with a come from nowhere story that make Obama’s look pathetic.
Jindal Bio
GeorgeH (8c15e5) — 2/7/2008 @ 8:52 amnk –
Interesting. I guess I’d always assumed that “presumption of innocence” was actually part of the written Constitution.
Thanks.
Leviticus (35fbde) — 2/7/2008 @ 10:02 amPablo,
Re #39. It is not primarily because he is black. It is because his achievements and positions are not of the status yet to make him seem more of a strategic pick based on his color.
He needs to be given the keynote addresses and other positions that elevate him to the national exposure. 2012 or beyond he could be a very good and viable choice.
voiceofreason2 (10af7e) — 2/7/2008 @ 10:06 amLeviticus #56,
I’m a lawyer, not a legal scholar, and there may be better authority out there, but Article III, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution reads in part:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity ….
Law and Equity are branches of the common law which, for over more than a thousand years, established the allocation and burden of proof, so that I would say that Due Process means adherence to the common law in the absence of any other provision to the contrary.
nk (4ebdf4) — 2/7/2008 @ 10:24 amP.S. I remember you saying that you carry a knife. So do I. At age sixteen, I fell afoul of Illinois’s “Unlawful Use of Weapons”. I was charged with carrying a knife “with the intent to use it unlawfully against another person”. (Good thing they didn’t catch me with my Walther PPK.) My lawyer bargained the case out for a $120.00 fee. My record was expunged — no harm, no foul. It was a long time ago, though, and now Illinois’s “permissible inference” would not stand Constitutional scrutiny in a case like mine. I still keep my knife in my pocket, but I see others with theirs in plain view.
nk (4ebdf4) — 2/7/2008 @ 10:38 am“It was a long time ago, though, and now Illinois’s “permissible inference” would not stand Constitutional scrutiny in a case like mine.”
-nk
You mean a prosecutorial inference of your intent in carrying a knife?
“I still keep my knife in my pocket, but I see others with theirs in plain view.”
– nk
That’s the way it is in New Mexico: nobody even notices. Last week, a clerk asked me to open a pop-top bottle of lighter fluid. I don’t have any fingernails (I’m a nervous nailbiter), so I took out my knife and used it to open the durn thing. She didn’t even bat an eyelash.
Leviticus (b987b0) — 2/7/2008 @ 10:53 amSame thing happened to me when I lived for a short while in Wyoming. my Brand new knife was on my blet infront of God and everyone, and we walked into a WalMart. I didn’t remember it was there for about 15 minutes (it happens). I was freaking out, but then noticed three guys with MUCH bigger knives on their belts.
Different culture than central IL I guess…
Scott Jacobs (3c07ad) — 2/7/2008 @ 10:58 amI used mine once to help the Clerk of the Court (the one whose desk is next to the judge’s bench) unjam her stapler. Honest Injun. 😉
nk (4ebdf4) — 2/7/2008 @ 11:02 amLMAO…
Scott Jacobs (3c07ad) — 2/7/2008 @ 11:39 amTrue story from post-9/11 federal courtroom.
The Courthouse Security Officers (CSO) — the guys who man the entrances and run all the screening equipment — confiscate just about anything and everything that might remotely resemble a weapon, including anything sharp or pointed, right down to a 2 inch pocketknife.
But as I sat in court one morning about 4 years ago, I looked over at a pro se litigant who was there pleading some nonsense motion to the judge in some case against a big bad insurance company.
I noticed in his brief case that he had a pair of scissors — but these were not a little pair of round-ended kiddie scissors. Noooo — he had one of those pair of scissors that were about 8 inches long and ended in sharp points on the ends.
I motioned to one of the CSOs who was in the courtroom that he should look inside the guy’s briefcase which was sitting open on the desk. The CSO’s face went white, and he stayed very close to this pro se litigant — who was a little bit of a nut anyway — until the hearing was over and the guy left.
Needless to say, the CSO working the screening device at the front door was reassigned.
WLS (68fd1f) — 2/8/2008 @ 1:07 pmI realize i am getting into this late… and i am a novice, never having left a comment on a political board before, but…. Guliani to my mind seems to be the best choice for vp. you haven’t mentioned him too much, but when you do there is little negative to say. Will he help the ticket? yeah probably, especially with independants. More importantly i think he would have a positive impact on the McCain administration.
hal yoder (57cf94) — 2/14/2008 @ 2:13 pmI can’t belive Michel Steele’s name has even been mentioned. What has he done politically? He was a ( one term) lt. governor of Md. I live in Md. and had not herd of the guy until he was running. Hell, I’d float Earlich’s name before Steele’s. Anyway, thats not the point. My choice, would be Alaska’s governor, Sarah Palin. She’s young, has a very good record, she’s conservative, and deffinatly a washington outsider.
Don Squires (914b1c) — 2/19/2008 @ 9:53 pm