Condi Rice, VP Choice (Drudge)

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard

Agreed 100%

I'm a big fan of Condi, but that would be too easy for the DNC. It would be Obama vs. Bush all over again.

True. It will be anyway, Obama's made that clear.

It's an interesting question. She's almost universally respected, intelligent, hits two key demographics, and is viewed as a moderate. As an independent and centrist, I like her in her own right. Her experience in education doesn't hurt, either.

But the connection to the Bush regime will be a deal breaker for many.

All in all, I think its political effect (pulls women and blacks! pushes folks with strong antipathy to Bush!) is close enough to neutral that the pick can be judged on its own merits; then again, the point of a VP in a race like this is to get some bounce, not just a neutral effect.

TL;DR: Interesting. Who knows how that would play out.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Warfish

"Not Excited" =/= Not Supportive

One is forced to ponder how long it would take, in milliseconds, before you became excited should they be the choice.



So, you're against someone who has a less than 0% chance of being named.

Thats attacking the question with integrity!



Well, of course not. I would never have presumed there was.

I don't change my opinions with the wind. You have read enough of my sometimes long winded but well reasoned opinions here to know that. There are two ways to look at things. Politically I think the best bet would be to choose a woman. I believe that Hillary Clinton Democrats are not in love with Obama. The key is that the person also needs to be credible and qualified to assume the top spot. I prefer people that have Governed a State over legislators. Politics is about making the best moves to win.

On a more rational "governing" level many of the safe picks are fine. Portman and Pawlenty both seem suited to handle the job well. I don't see any possible bounce by picking someone like them though. If Romney picks one of them or someone like that I will call it what it is. A safe and boring pick not likely to move the needle one way or the other.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

I don't change my opinions with the wind.

Well, given the only candidate you're actively against is Palin, you've set yourself up well to be consistent.

When you support everyone possible, and only hold back support for an impossibillity, thats not really taking much of a position to start with.

The TLDR is that no matter who (R) realisticly names as their VP choice, you support it or will quickly support it.

Which, as I'm sure you can understand, makes discussing it with you rather....pointless.

[quantum]

Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard

Agreed 100%

I'm a big fan of Condi, but that would be too easy for the DNC. It would be Obama vs. Bush all over again.

And since people are tired of "its Bush's fault", then its an easy Romney win.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Well, given the only candidate you're actively against is Palin, you've set yourself up well to be consistent.

When you support everyone possible, and only hold back support for an impossibillity, thats not really taking much of a position to start with.

The TLDR is that no matter who (R) realisticly names as their VP choice, you support it or will quickly support it.

Which, as I'm sure you can understand, makes discussing it with you rather....pointless.

I was actively against Santorum in the primaries. Ripped him here in the forums big time. I was against Gingrich as well.

The reason I'm not screaming bloody murder on any of the potential VP picks is because the list includes politicians that I either like or don't dislike. I love Christie, Ryan, Rubio and Jindal. They are rising stars in the GOP for good reason. I like Haley, Martinez and Condi as well. The Pawlenty, Porter group simply is boring. If he picked Santorum or Gingrich I'd actively rail against the move here in the forums. Same for Bachman and Huckabee. I'm not a fan of that group.

I like to the the GOP move away from the social values focus and more towards a fiscal conservative stance. I don't support candidates that push social values agendas. I find the topic uninteresting and a distraction.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

The reason I'm not screaming bloody murder on any of the potential VP picks is because the list includes politicians that I either like or don't dislike. I love Christie, Ryan, Rubio and Jindal. They are rising stars in the GOP for good reason. I like Haley, Martinez and Condi as well. The Pawlenty, Porter group simply is boring. If he picked Santorum or Gingrich I'd actively rail against the move here in the forums. Same for Bachman and Huckabee. I'm not a fan of that group.

Well, as I said, you support everyone who is a possible, and are only against a select few who are no-chance names.

I like to the the GOP move away from the social values focus and more towards a fiscal conservative stance. I don't support candidates that push social values agendas. I find the topic uninteresting and a distraction.

Best of luck with that, I don't think it'll get much traction with the traditional Republical/Social Conservative base.

Maybe you and Flsuhing should have a discussion on that, he'd be far better suited than I.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Maybe you and Flsuhing should have a discussion on that, he'd be far better suited than I.

That would actually be pretty entertaining

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Well, as I said, you support everyone who is a possible, and are only against a select few who are no-chance names.



Best of luck with that, I don't think it'll get much traction with the traditional Republical/Social Conservative base.

Maybe you and Flsuhing should have a discussion on that, he'd be far better suited than I.

The TEA Party supposedly prefers the same thing in their picks. True Fiscal Conservatives. I think the move is happening though there will allways be a vocal "Social Values" wing.

I look at it as a lesser of two evils situation. Both parties pander to certain groups to an extent. Democrats pander to Unions, illegal aliens, gays and people on federal aid programs like Wellfare and Food Stamps. GOP'ers pander to social conservatives. The whole concept of the abortion debate is the epitome of this. This is an issue that has already been decided by the SCOTUS. It will never be changed. Yet somehow this question of pro vs anti abortion comes up and looms large in every election cycle. Why? Will the law ever be changed? No. The entire premise is never relevant to the important (to me) issues of the day.

Today we have an economy that is so far in the hole debt wise that we are literally looking at the easiest to predict financial calamity in history. Who gives a crap about abortions when our currency model and economy as a whole IMO is on the verge of disaster. Who cares about gay marriages at a time when a law is on the books about to go past the point of no return that will significantly change our healthcare system for the worse while simultaneously deepening a debt crisis that was bad enough before this garbage was passed.

[MnJetFan]

I think it is just testing the waters, to see what public opinion will be. IMHO

[Jungle Shift Jet]

The crypto-liberal 0 enablers are right - It's too distracting and complicated to be against B. Hussein's sociopathic queering and Marx-izing of the US at the same time

The best stratagem is to pick a Hispanic woman who has nothing to do w/ W.
We don't need the racial arsonists complaining once again about Condi shopping for shoes in
Paris in the aftermath of Katrina when her job was Secretary of State (i. e. Foreign Minister)
Rubio is a phony for amnesty. Christie and Ryan would be fine as well.

[adb280z]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

I look at it as a lesser of two evils situation. Both parties pander to certain groups to an extent. Democrats pander to Unions, illegal aliens, gays and people on federal aid programs like Wellfare and Food Stamps. GOP'ers pander to social conservatives. The whole concept of the abortion debate is the epitome of this. This is an issue that has already been decided by the SCOTUS. It will never be changed. Yet somehow this question of pro vs anti abortion comes up and looms large in every election cycle. Why? Will the law ever be changed? No. The entire premise is never relevant to the important (to me) issues of the day.

Abortion is the #1 reason I don't think Condi will be VP, she's pro-choice.

[brady's a catcher]

Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet

The crypto-liberal 0 enablers are right - It's too distracting and complicated to be against B. Hussein's sociopathic queering and Marx-izing of the US at the same time

The best stratagem is to pick a Hispanic woman who has nothing to do w/ W.
We don't need the racial arsonists complaining once again about Condi shopping for shoes in
Paris in the aftermath of Katrina when her job was Secretary of State (i. e. Foreign Minister)
Rubio is a phony for amnesty. Christie and Ryan would be fine as well.

Mostly agree. Martinez is the "safest" needle mover, no lose. But would they really attack a black woman much? Would be interesting to see but I want Obama out more than I want to see my curiosity satisfied.

Also, if you believe the experts, Rubio gets the Fla and Cuban vote, but not necessarily the mexican/central/south american and illegal vote.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet

...sociopathic queering...

Queering?


LMAO!!

Go look at what people wore in the 50's, 60's and 70's. everyone back then was a fag. Tight pants. Gay socks pulled up to their knees.

But Obama is queering everyone. lolz...

Back "in the day", Sandusky'ing in the locker room was the norm.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

Queering?


LMAO!!

Go look at what people wore in the 50's, 60's and 70's. everyone back then was a fag. Tight pants. Gay socks pulled up to their knees.

But Obama is queering everyone. lolz...

Back "in the day", Sandusky'ing in the locker room was the norm.

You're the one with the rainbow tat, not me. All you need are a few unicorns and a bodybuilder getting pleasured by a cephalopod to complete the tableau, lolZ

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Originally Posted by brady's a catcher

Mostly agree. Martinez is the "safest" needle mover, no lose. But would they really attack a black woman much? Would be interesting to see but I want Obama out more than I want to see my curiosity satisfied.

Also, if you believe the experts, Rubio gets the Fla and Cuban vote, but not necessarily the mexican/central/south american and illegal vote.

Yes "they" would. Any AA who dares to be GOP is off the reservation/plantation, and called white, Uncle Tom, you name it

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Warfish

For example? Iraq, I'd assume is #1, but others?

As if the Iraq war was a small thing



There is a strong case that she ignored evidence of the 9/11 attacks.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet

You're the one with the rainbow tat, not me. All you need are a few unicorns and a bodybuilder getting pleasured by a cephalopod to complete the tableau, lolZ

lolz...

Stop rubbing yourself out to saved pictures of me. Jesus H, bro.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

lolz...

Stop rubbing yourself out to saved pictures of me. Jesus H, bro.

No rubbing involved, the ghey rainbow flag tat seen cannot be unseen...it was seared into my memory indelibly like branding a can of dog food...



Honestly it made me think even less of you than before!

[MnJetFan]

Originally Posted by Buster

As if the Iraq war was a small thing



There is a strong case that she ignored evidence of the 9/11 attacks.

There is evidence that Clintons not taking out Obama in Afghanistan was the nail in coffin. Saudi Royal Family were there god help up if we off some rich ragheads.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet

No rubbing involved, the ghey rainbow flag tat seen cannot be unseen...it was seared into my memory indelibly like branding a can of dog food...



Honestly it made me think even less of you than before!

I'll keep that in mind while I play with my GF's boobs tonite.


Sent from my Double-Wide using Semaphore...