- 3,954
- 777
Me too! ...as long as it was liberally conservative.Astronuc said:
Who Are Potential Vice Presidential Candidates for Obama and Clinton?
- Context: News
- Thread starter Ivan Seeking
- Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
118 replies · 20K views
turbo
Gold Member
- 3,181
- 57
We have a problem here. People on both sides of the liberal/conservative divide are driven by self-interest and use these blanket terms to tar one another in terms that the average voter cannot understand. Thus we have people complaining that Obama is a socialist and we've got Republicans saying that McCain is too liberal. Instead of having a dialog on policy and positions, we have senseless blather centered around monolithic dichotomies that DO NOT EXIST.
- 22,652
- 7,729
But you left out Ross Perot! Or how about Dan Quayle?BobG said:
How about Victoria Sinclair?!
RonPaul2008
"So then, what is your point in posting those links? Most people would consider their voting records as a positive, not a negative."
Would you explain your opinion as to how and what about their voting was positive and in any way beneficial to the average working American? In my opinion, they are both socialists who want to continue this perpetual welfare state and interventionist policy; them as well as McCain.
I wanted to point out the socialist voting records of Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, who both voted for increased spending and more anti-business regulations. Hilary Clinton herself said on national television not too long ago that the oil companies can afford to pay about fifty percent of their windfall profits so that people buying gas at the pump don't have to pay their fair share of tax. She euphemistically refers to it as "the gas tax holiday." It helps you and me, sure, but it's unfair to the oil companies. Why should they or any company be punished for making a legitimate profit? Do you still deny, if elected, Hilary Clinton would enact socialist policies and allow the welfare state to continue? The economic leeches suck hardworking Americans dry. I don't want to pay for an illegal immigrant to have a baby here and pay for her TB shots. I don't want to pay for the welfare of a single mother and children because she doesn't know how to quit having babies. I don't want to pay for foreign aid to people on the other side of the globe. I don't want to pay for elderly who lacked the discipline or foresight to save for retirement. I don't want to invade sovereign nations who are not a threat to Americans. In my opinion, if Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, or McCain were elected, the status quo would remain the same for another four years, just a little different with each of those three candidates. We'd still be paying taxes for medical care, social security, welfare, and other programs that exploit from me and other taxpayers, and it would not be to our benefit. I don't know about you, but I like to keep most of the money I make. What about you? This forced philanthropy and worldwide intervention policy has got to end one way or another, and that is why I am voting for another revolution by voting for Ron Paul.
Would you explain your opinion as to how and what about their voting was positive and in any way beneficial to the average working American? In my opinion, they are both socialists who want to continue this perpetual welfare state and interventionist policy; them as well as McCain.
I wanted to point out the socialist voting records of Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, who both voted for increased spending and more anti-business regulations. Hilary Clinton herself said on national television not too long ago that the oil companies can afford to pay about fifty percent of their windfall profits so that people buying gas at the pump don't have to pay their fair share of tax. She euphemistically refers to it as "the gas tax holiday." It helps you and me, sure, but it's unfair to the oil companies. Why should they or any company be punished for making a legitimate profit? Do you still deny, if elected, Hilary Clinton would enact socialist policies and allow the welfare state to continue? The economic leeches suck hardworking Americans dry. I don't want to pay for an illegal immigrant to have a baby here and pay for her TB shots. I don't want to pay for the welfare of a single mother and children because she doesn't know how to quit having babies. I don't want to pay for foreign aid to people on the other side of the globe. I don't want to pay for elderly who lacked the discipline or foresight to save for retirement. I don't want to invade sovereign nations who are not a threat to Americans. In my opinion, if Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, or McCain were elected, the status quo would remain the same for another four years, just a little different with each of those three candidates. We'd still be paying taxes for medical care, social security, welfare, and other programs that exploit from me and other taxpayers, and it would not be to our benefit. I don't know about you, but I like to keep most of the money I make. What about you? This forced philanthropy and worldwide intervention policy has got to end one way or another, and that is why I am voting for another revolution by voting for Ron Paul.
Last edited by a moderator:
Evo
- 24,114
- 3,277
You do know he's not being considered as a candidate, right?RonPaul2008 said:
Last edited:
RonPaul2008
What is your point? Hilary Clinton isn't doing too hot either, but that isn't stopping many Democrats from standing behind her through thick and thin. You should never support or refuse to support a candidate based on his or her chances of winning. I share most of Ron Paul's beliefs, and I will write in his name on the ballot. I'm still hoping he will make an appearance and a political statement at the RNC, though, so that the next time he runs people will know who this guy is and what he is about. He is still on the ballot. No, he isn't doing well, but I'd say roughly 20% during the North Carolina Republican primaries is significant for somebody not well known who has not received nearly as much media coverage compared to other candidates. I think people and the media need to give this guy a chance and listen to what he has to say.
turbo
Gold Member
- 3,181
- 57
He has NO chance unless some nut-case assassinates McCain. Clinton is in the same boat. Do you think that we are going to select our leaders through a process that involves assassination? You have gone way past theoretical to psychotic.RonPaul2008 said:
Evo
- 24,114
- 3,277
Are you serious?RonPaul2008 said:
Understatement of the year.
That is exactly why he isn't taken serious, people *have* looked at what he's saying and his voting record.
Sorry, IMHO, Ron Paul only appeals to an odd fringe. The numbers speak for themselves.
RonPaul2008
" Do you think that we are going to select our leaders through a process that involves assassination?"
When did I once mention or imply assassination as the best method of leadership selection? That would go against my libertarian views. The only realistic revolution in a free society is done with ballot sheets, not bullets.
"That is exactly why he isn't taken serious, people *have* looked at what he's saying and his voting record."
Here is an overview of his voting. What do you find so questionable about his voting or his views? You still haven't been clear as to what you find so wrong with this guy or what would be wrong with his plans if he becomes president. Nobody has countered and explained why.
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
"Sorry, IMHO, Ron Paul only appeals to an odd fringe. The numbers speak for themselves."
I hate to tell you, but the majority aren't always right. The majority believed in slavery back in the day, if you could believe it. Sometimes it takes a few insightful men to make drastic and effective change. America does need change, but Obama isn't the one. By the way, I'm still waiting on the senator's explanation of what exactly his "changes" will be. Ron Paul has been very clear on what his will be. But whenever I see the Obama campaign spouting off change, it seems awfully reminiscent of John Kerry saying "I have a plan" with a broken record, without ever revealing what that plan was.
When did I once mention or imply assassination as the best method of leadership selection? That would go against my libertarian views. The only realistic revolution in a free society is done with ballot sheets, not bullets.
"That is exactly why he isn't taken serious, people *have* looked at what he's saying and his voting record."
Here is an overview of his voting. What do you find so questionable about his voting or his views? You still haven't been clear as to what you find so wrong with this guy or what would be wrong with his plans if he becomes president. Nobody has countered and explained why.
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
"Sorry, IMHO, Ron Paul only appeals to an odd fringe. The numbers speak for themselves."
I hate to tell you, but the majority aren't always right. The majority believed in slavery back in the day, if you could believe it. Sometimes it takes a few insightful men to make drastic and effective change. America does need change, but Obama isn't the one. By the way, I'm still waiting on the senator's explanation of what exactly his "changes" will be. Ron Paul has been very clear on what his will be. But whenever I see the Obama campaign spouting off change, it seems awfully reminiscent of John Kerry saying "I have a plan" with a broken record, without ever revealing what that plan was.
Last edited by a moderator:
drankin
RonPaul2008 said:
I would like to see more of Ron Paul, myself. We'll see what happens.
- 22,652
- 7,729
Last edited:
TheStatutoryApe
- 301
- 3
Hagel looks like a very interesting choice.
Last edited:
- 364
- 87
How about Sarah Palin as a VP for McCain.
Pros:
- First woman President could get there by succeeding the oldest President in history.
- Her approval ratings as Governor of Alaska are in the 80's - she has the highest approval ratings of any politician in America right now.
- Has a reputation for cutting spending.
- Has a reputation for integrity. Filed ethics complaints on other Republicans serving on Alaska's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
Cons:
- All of the people she filed ethics complaints against were found not guilty (of course, there's a difference between criminal guilt and unethical behavior).
- Suing the US Department of the Interior for listing polar bears as endangered species (it could impact oil drilling in the state)
- The Matanuska Maid Dairy. Fired the state dairy board when they recommended closing the state owned dairy (it was losing money). The new board kept the dairy open until it lost even more money. The dairy finally closed and couldn't even sell off its assets.
Pro/Con (depending on views):
- Pro-life
- Opposes same sex marriage, but vetoed legislation that would have denied benefits to gay state employees.
- Pro gun rights.
Who cares trivia:
- Point guard on her state champ basketball team
- Miss congeniality in Miss Alaska beauty contest
- Eats mooseburgers and rides snowmobiles (of course, it's Alaska so riding snowmobiles is kind like saying she drives a car).
Pros:
- First woman President could get there by succeeding the oldest President in history.
- Her approval ratings as Governor of Alaska are in the 80's - she has the highest approval ratings of any politician in America right now.
- Has a reputation for cutting spending.
- Has a reputation for integrity. Filed ethics complaints on other Republicans serving on Alaska's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
Cons:
- All of the people she filed ethics complaints against were found not guilty (of course, there's a difference between criminal guilt and unethical behavior).
- Suing the US Department of the Interior for listing polar bears as endangered species (it could impact oil drilling in the state)
- The Matanuska Maid Dairy. Fired the state dairy board when they recommended closing the state owned dairy (it was losing money). The new board kept the dairy open until it lost even more money. The dairy finally closed and couldn't even sell off its assets.
Pro/Con (depending on views):
- Pro-life
- Opposes same sex marriage, but vetoed legislation that would have denied benefits to gay state employees.
- Pro gun rights.
Who cares trivia:
- Point guard on her state champ basketball team
- Miss congeniality in Miss Alaska beauty contest
- Eats mooseburgers and rides snowmobiles (of course, it's Alaska so riding snowmobiles is kind like saying she drives a car).
Last edited:
- 7,213
- 25
I doubt that she'd want to do it. She gave birth to a baby last month - her son had been diagnosed with Down Syndrome. It's already very difficult balancing governance with childcare.BobG said:
- 7,213
- 25
MSNBC has a Veepstakes game you can play here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24672458/
- 22,652
- 7,729
Interesting possibilities -
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080528/pl_politico/10672;_ylt=Ak9KVWklsSBhwSLaY8XRpzxh24cA
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080528/pl_politico/10672;_ylt=Ak9KVWklsSBhwSLaY8XRpzxh24cA
Last edited by a moderator:
- 7,213
- 25
No better way to lose the Clinton women than putting Webb on the ticket. Same for the anti-war demographic.
- 8,252
- 2,666
Why would he be more of a negative for the female vote than any other candidate besides Clinton? As for the anti-war vote, I don't see that either. Who are they going to vote for, McCain? Will they stay home and give it away? It doesn't seem likely unless there is something about Webb that makes him particularly offensive.
He would be a HUGE pull for moderates, like me.
He would be a HUGE pull for moderates, like me.
Last edited:
- 2,050
- 614
Ivan Seeking said:
I think the argument that Webb would repel some women voters is based on an article that he wrote in 1979, "Women Can't Fight."
http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/mediapolitics/2182.html
In that article, he opines that women should not be allowed to enroll in the Military Academies. The article is quite long, and he makes several salient points. I think he may have moderated his opinion in recent years, but the article is still out there.
The uber-feminists who believe sexism alone sank Clinton's campaign are not going to like Webb much, IMO.
As far as Webb scaring away the anti-war vote, I see no evidence of that at all. In fact, as a Marine comander who lost 51 guys in Vietnam, I would expect him to be far less careless about sending our nation's youth into war than the chicken-hawks we now have in the White House.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 8,252
- 2,666
His son was fighting in Iraq, but he refused to show Bush any respect, and right to his face, because he is personally appalled by Bush's reckless abuse of power and rush to war. He is a smart, experienced, straight-talking vet, and a former Republican - a Reagan Republican. He would also be an effective bridge to the Pentagon for Obama.
I need to read his bit and see how damaging it would be to the female vote. I haven't heard him speak to this point.
{late edit: Wreckless to reckless
}
I need to read his bit and see how damaging it would be to the female vote. I haven't heard him speak to this point.
{late edit: Wreckless to reckless
}
Last edited:
- 8,252
- 2,666
http://webb.senate.gov/jim/
Last edited by a moderator:
- 7,213
- 25
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091302301.html
Webb has since apologized (kinda) for the (30-year-old) article, but feminist groups still hate him.
Webb has since apologized (kinda) for the (30-year-old) article, but feminist groups still hate him.
Last edited:
- 8,252
- 2,666
It seems fair to assume that he won't help Obama with the more radical feminist vote, but I'm not sure how much this would matter generally among women. From a logical pov, the VP has no formal role in selecting Supreme Court Justices, which would be the primary concern.
Would the threat of a McCain overshadow a VP? McCain represents a far greater threat to women's rights than does Webb.
Would the threat of a McCain overshadow a VP? McCain represents a far greater threat to women's rights than does Webb.
- 364
- 87
Webb would do one thing. Virginia is actually a lot closer than I expected and Webb could make that a Democratic pickup in November. With 13 electoral votes, that would mean losing Ohio wouldn't be a disaster. Webb would be even more likely if it looks like Obama will win Ohio no matter what.
I think the most likely candidate is Strickland with either Sebelius, Richardson, or Webb as possible dark horses.
I think Huckabee is the most likely Republican VP by quite a bit. He keeps popping up on TV and always makes a good impression (aside from the one huge Obama joke gaffe). In the general, people won't remember his positions in the primaries. They'll just see his face in the general campaign. And remember, conservatives looking at his record instead of listening to his campaign thought he was too much of a moderate.
I think the most likely candidate is Strickland with either Sebelius, Richardson, or Webb as possible dark horses.
I think Huckabee is the most likely Republican VP by quite a bit. He keeps popping up on TV and always makes a good impression (aside from the one huge Obama joke gaffe). In the general, people won't remember his positions in the primaries. They'll just see his face in the general campaign. And remember, conservatives looking at his record instead of listening to his campaign thought he was too much of a moderate.
- 3,954
- 777
BobG said:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/10/strickland_takes_himself_out_o.html"
Looks like Strickland is out... Sebelius won't give him any foreign policy creds. I think it's Richardson. If Richardson can motivate the Hispanic vote in any way like Obama motivates the black vote, the combination is unbeatable.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 7,213
- 25
Not exactly. The selection of SC Judges and the protection of Roe v Wade is a much bigger issue for young women than it is for post menopausal women who make up the core of the Hillary base. For the latter, it is the presence of a female in a position of power that is more important.Ivan Seeking said:
turbo
Gold Member
- 3,181
- 57
chemisttree said:
I agree. Richardson is my go-to for VP. Experienced diplomat, former Secretary of Energy, and very well-liked by other governors, both Dems and GOP. If he can fire up Hispanics (especially in the SW and in FL) he will be a real asset.
Last edited:
- 7,213
- 25
If he can, he will make NM and CO safe, flip NV and make FL very close. Richardson carries a lot of potential electoral brownie points in addition to his qualifications. He won't, however, help win over the Clintonites!turbo-1 said:
Last edited:
- 8,252
- 2,666
Gokul43201 said:
Eh, I would debate that point. Post menopausal women are the ones who fought the fight. Arguably, they could be throwing away a lifetime of activism by either voting for McCain, or by not voting for Obama.
I expect a lot of threats from the Hillary supporters until Obama names a VP. But come November, they are going to be looking at the reality of McCain.
Last edited: