The McCain Thread

Who will be McCain's runningmate?

  • Mitt Romney (former Governor of Massachussets)

  • Mike Huckabee (former Governor of Arkansas)

  • Rudy Giuliani (former mayor New York)

  • Charlie Christ (current governor of Florida)

  • Fred Thompson (former US Senator of Tennessee)

  • Condaleeza Rice (Secretary of State)

  • Colin Powell (former Secretary of State)

  • JC Watts (former Republican chairman of Republican House)

  • Rob Portman (Director of Office of Management and Budget)

  • Tim Pawlenty (Governor of Minnesota)

  • Bobby Jindal (Governor of Lousiana)

  • Mark Sanford (Governor of South Carolina)

  • Lindsey Graham (US Senator of South Carolina)

  • Sarah Palin (Governor of Alaska)

  • Kay Hutchinson (US Senator of Texas)

  • John Thune (US Senator of South Dakota)

  • Haley Barbour (Governor of Mississippi)

  • Marsha Blackburn (US Tenessee Representative)

  • Joseph Lieberman (US Senator of Connecticut)

  • Sonny Perdue (Governor of Georgia)

  • George Allen (former US Senator of Virginia)

  • Matt Blunt (Governor of Missouri)

  • some other US Senator, congressman

  • some other Governor

  • some dark horse like Dick Cheney


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
If Pete Stark ran for president, he wouldn't have these problems.

You're right, he'd have the problem that he's NOT religious, particularly Christian. That's an even more difficult problem than having controversial pastors in this country. Sad, but true. Considering some of the Founding Fathers were atheists or at the very least Deists (Franklin for instance), there should be nothing wrong with atheists or Deists running for President. But unfortunately, it seems as though religion has hijacked the initial intent of the Founding Fathers to try to say that the country has to be led by a religious person, specifically a Christian. As I said, sad but true.
 
Come on, Chairman, McGreevey being forced from office had nothing to do with his being gay - it wasn't even because he cheated on his wife.

McGreevey got in trouble because he put his boy toy in cushy government positions, a complete abuse of executive power. Not only was it a cushy government position - it was the Homeland Security adviser position, for which McGreevey's boy toy was completely and utterly unprepared for. It was received as a horrible decision even BEFORE it turned out McGreevey was messing with the guy's behind. The man (the adviser) couldn't even get security clearance from the federal government for crying out loud.

He deserved to not only be kicked out of office - but faced some sort of legal penalty.

ooopss......didn't see this
 
SO unless I'm not one or the other I can have no say? That's incredibly narrow-minded.

It's not narrow-minded at all. It's factual. EXAMPLE: Do I have a right to say that a pregnant woman's birth pangs can't possibly be that painful????

In other words, there are some experiences in this life we simply cannot hold claim to, and must take the words of others on their merit.
 
It was received as a horrible decision even BEFORE it turned out McGreevey was messing with the guy's behind.

The way how you worded this literally made me laugh out loud. Which is sad, considering the topic of this conversation. Was it intentional?













:lmao:
 
It's not narrow-minded at all. It's factual. EXAMPLE: Do I have a right to say that a pregnant woman's birth pangs can't possibly be that painful????

In other words, there are some experiences in this life we simply cannot hold claim to, and must take the words of others on their merit.

We're not talking about pregnant women. (Anyone who suggests that pregancy isn't painful is an idiot!) How would I know it's painful if I'm not a woman? Because I have common sense and would like to think that I am somewhat intelligent. Equal rights is something that I am very passionate about and I will be putting in my two cents on the subject. You do not have to be one or the other to understand what goes on. I have plenty of friends and family members that I have watched for quite some time, I know how things go. Trust me.
 
Meh.
(Stepping back from a full blown argument becuase V realizes we are "mostly" on the same page.)

enough,... peace, truce, standing down from ops,....

V.
 
We're not talking about pregnant women. (Anyone who suggests that pregancy isn't painful is an idiot!) How would I know it's painful if I'm not a woman? Because I have common sense and would like to think that I am somewhat intelligent. Equal rights is something that I am very passionate about and I will be putting in my two cents on the subject. You do not have to be one or the other to understand what goes on. I have plenty of friends and family members that I have watched for quite some time, I know how things go. Trust me.

You've missed my point.

But okay. I trust you understand how things go for me as a biracial man. :whatever:
 
My God...third person? Really?

Really.

I am of the mind,

that you and me, and all those who type here williningly,

Have the right like Varient does to speak in whichever way found most interesting.

V.

:meanie:
 
You've missed my point.

But okay. I trust you understand how things go for me as a biracial man. :whatever:

No I got your point. You may be more aware of what goes on with racial issues because you have experienced it first hand, but don't think of me as some kind of idiot who knows nothing about how the world works. I'm a lot more aware of things than you know.
 
Politics1 had a brief interview with a campaign advisor close to McCain who talked a bit about possible running mates:

Politics1 had an interesting chat over the weekend with a well-placed source who has been serving as a senior McCain advisor during the primary campaign. For reasons that will be clear, you'll see why he didn't want to be named. The topic: possible GOP Vice Presidential runningmates. "My advice is to pick a safe choice, someone who won't do any political damage," he said, "but I don't think that is entirely where it's heading. Everytime I look at the names, I think the choice is going to be [Florida Governor] Charlie Crist. I mean, just look at the other guys [being mentioned] and they're just so underwhelming that it leads back to Charlie by elimination. Mitt Romney isn't going to happen. Huckabee may end up in the Cabinet, but won't be the runningmate. [Minnesota Governor Tim] Pawlenty has a great story, coming from blue collar roots, but he couldn't deliver Minnesota Republicans, so how is Pawlenty going to do anything for McCain in the general? [South Carolina Governor] Mark Sanford would probably be my first choice, as he's a very safe pick. But Sanford doesn't add anything that McCain doesn't already have." What about former Ohio Congressman Rob Portman, who served as President Bush's Budget Director? "Give me a ****ing break: Portman has a zero percent chance of being on the ticket. He'd be a terrible choice." What about the rumors that McCain wants Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) as his runningmate? "Absolutely true. Joe Lieberman would be McCain's top choice if he could pick the person he really wants as a runningmate. It would be a bold pick, the kind of choice that would have the potential to remake modern American politics into something new. It would guarantee McCain a landslide win in November -- and, mark my words, McCain won't have the guts to do it. He'd really like to pick Lieberman, but in the end he'll cave to those who want a more traditional choice. That's why I say it falls back to Charlie Crist as the runningmate." Why Crist more than one of the other names? "Crist's endorsement, when Romney was flying up McCain's ass in the polls, and possibly had passed him in Florida in that last weekend, was the single turning point that made McCain the nominee. But for Charlie Crist, McCain would not be our nominee." What about the rumors that Crist is gay or too much of a centrist? "Who cares what he stands for because he delivered for McCain in the primary. Charlie would put Florida safely in the Republican column in November. As to the gay rumors, that's just a lot of insider stuff. Most Americans -- and most Floridians -- have never heard the rumors and really don't want to hear the rumors. Charlie says he isn't gay, nobody has proven otherwise, and the public will accept him at his word ... I have no idea if he is or isn't, but the public just doesn't want to hear this stuff.

Out of those listed, I still say Mark Sanford would be the ideal choice.
 
If McCain picks Lieberman as his running mate, I will vote for him. Lieberman has a strong, liberal record on almost every other issue except for the war. If McCain dies and Lieberman becomes President, the nation wins, with the exception of Iraq. But if Lieberman becomes President, he'll be defeated in 2012, if he even runs at all (the man's too old, first of all, and neither party would want to run him as their national candidate).

So I'm all for McCain-Lieberman. My second choice would be McCain-Rice, and that's only because Condi Rice is adamantly pro-choice, so a Rice presidency wouldn't overthrow Roe v. Wade... which is my concern when swimming with social conservatives...
 
I don't like Lieberman. Mostly because of his pro-censorship views.

I'm not sure how much Sanford brings to the ticket. South Carolina is a pretty reliable red state.

Charlie Crist is indeed the safe choice.

Sarah Palin is the ideal choice...but she had to go and get herself pregnant. So much for a VILF :csad:

Bobby Jindal would be interesting, but unlikely. He would appease the conservative base and allow McCain to move more towards the middle. He would offset Obama or Clinton's minority card. He is young and energetic. He would definitely be a good choice for McCain, but I doubt McCain would select him.
 
I'm not sure how much Sanford brings to the ticket. South Carolina is a pretty reliable red state.

The rationale behind him is that he is a young, Southern Governor who is liked by both social and fiscal conservatives. I would agree that he doesn't bring a whole lot geographically, but he could consolidate the base in the South. Which as the primaries suggested, McCain will probably have to do. On paper, at least, he seems like the best choice, IMO.
 
I would challenge someone to find out exactly how this breakfast was put together......I think it is laughable that some are trying to build even the slightest relationship between Clinton and Wright...and even if they could....who cares...there are many of these breakfasts set up for different occassions throughout the year....and 1,000's of pictures taken, throughout the year. Wright is one of the most well known preachers in the Midwest, its not a stretch that he would be at a national luncheon of this kind.

And even if there was a slight relationship, was he a mentor of Clinton's? Did Clinton equate this man with family? Was he a part of his inner circle as a spiritual advisor?

If Reverend Wright believes what he said from his pulpit....more power to him.....that is his right.....God Bless America that he can have these beliefs and preach them freely from his pulpit.........BUT, as many have.....these comments are "divisive".... Obama himself has said this.....as close as Obama is to Wright, there is no one here or anywhere that can convince that he did not know that Wright had these beliefs.....in fact, Obama himself said he knew in his speech.......but no one, including Obama has been able to answer the question as to why, in a campaign that is built on change and bringing a country he sees a divided together....why would you have someone that believed these things even close to your campaign. If you love him like family, fine......love him, let him pray for you, let him within his church support you......but my god, why would you let him anywhere near your inner circle of your campaign? I would think that Obama would be smart enough, or in the least, have people around him smart enough to know and understand America well enough to know that if these comments hit the news, it would damage the core of his campagin.


That question has not been answered, and I don't believe it will be answered.....

I would have applauded his speech on race a month ago.....it is a speech I was waiting for...........but it was given out of a motive for patching a problem, not for healing America.

Sorry my friend, but the burden of proof is on you. You made the insinuation that Wright just one of many who were invited. May I ask, what are basing this on? Facts or conjecture? I've made my case, provided 2 letters from US Presidents commending wright, in 1966, and in 1998. So I challenge you provide, or refute the material evidence that's been provided thus far. Our case has been proven, yours hasn't.
 
Sorry my friend, but the burden of proof is on you. You made the insinuation that Wright just one of many who were invited. May I ask, what are basing this on? Facts or conjecture? I've made my case, provided 2 letters from US Presidents commending wright, in 1966, and in 1998. So I challenge you provide, or refute the material evidence that's been provided thus far. Our case has been proven, yours hasn't.

Wright attended a Conference attended by hundreds of religious religious following the Clinton impeachment scandal.

from The Huffington Post
And an anonymous blog set up to defend his church offers some compelling photographic evidence of this: A photograph of Wright and President Clinton, which it says was taken on September 11, 1998 -- the date of a White House gathering for religious leaders.

From The Baltimore Sun

A photograph of former President Bill Clinton and Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. has appeared, courtesy of Barack Obama's campaign, as part of an effort to try to shift some of the attention in a controversy that has embroiled the Illinois Democrat for a week.

The photograph was first provided to the New York Times and shows the two men among a group of clerics and others at an annual prayer breakfast in September 1998, just as a report detailing Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky was about to be published.

The Tribune asked Obama's campaign on Monday whether it had any knowledge about a rumor circulating in Chicago that Wright had visited the Clinton White House. Spokesman Tommy Vietor never responded to the inquiry.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, then first lady, was also in the room for the prayer breakfast, according to the Times' report.

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer issued the following statement: "In the course of his two terms in office, Bill Clinton met with, corresponded with and took pictures with literally tens of thousands of people."



So you don't really have much of a case.
 
Sorry my friend, but the burden of proof is on you. You made the insinuation that Wright just one of many who were invited. May I ask, what are basing this on? Facts or conjecture? I've made my case, provided 2 letters from US Presidents commending wright, in 1966, and in 1998. So I challenge you provide, or refute the material evidence that's been provided thus far. Our case has been proven, yours hasn't.

Um, its a Prayer Breakfast with pastors from around the country back in 1998....they are an annual affair at the White House......so I don't think its a stretch to believe there are other pastors there.....and yes the White House has these breakfasts all the time. My pastor from college went to many of them as the President of the Southern Baptist Convention.


I asked for proof that Clinton has/had anywhere near the relationship with Wright that Obama and Wright has......and how does the picture equate with Obama's relationship with Wright?.....I don't need proof that Wright has done alot of good.....I haven't debated that...at all.

Maybe I'm just really tired, but honestly "my friend" I have no idea what the hell you are talking about....:huh::huh:
 
Wright attended a Conference attended by hundreds of religious religious following the Clinton impeachment scandal.

Where are you getting your facts from? He was one of 100. Not one of 100's, you're intentionally trying to distort the truth inorder to reinforce your subjective bias in this debate.


(CNN) – Barack Obama’s former minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, attended a 1998 Clinton White House prayer breakfast, and met former President Bill Clinton – a moment which was documented by official photographers in a photo that surfaced Thursday.

Wright was one of roughly 100 religious leaders invited to the breakfast, which was held in the East Room on September 11, 1998, as part of a series of similar events scheduled that year in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...esident-clinton-controversial-obama-minister/
 
Where are you getting your facts from? He was one of 100. Not one of 100's, you're intentionally trying to distort the truth inorder to reinforce your subjective bias in this debate.


(CNN) – Barack Obama’s former minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, attended a 1998 Clinton White House prayer breakfast, and met former President Bill Clinton – a moment which was documented by official photographers in a photo that surfaced Thursday.

Wright was one of roughly 100 religious leaders invited to the breakfast, which was held in the East Room on September 11, 1998, as part of a series of similar events scheduled that year in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...esident-clinton-controversial-obama-minister/

Okay then. He was one of one hundred. I thought, when I read it, that I read "hundreds." I apologize.

Regardless of the number, though, it wasn't like Wright was the only person there...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"