Redstate

...I think I'd prefer Ron Paul as a veep to McCain. John's a good man, but he's getting more and more flaky lately. Paul, on the other hand, would pretty much make the person at the top of the ticket virtually impeachment-proof, as nobody in Congress can deal with him. That being said, he'd also likely make the candidate at the top unelectable, but probably no more so than McCain as a VP candidate would convince people to stay home.

"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people get out and vote." - P.J. O'Rourke

And his name is John Kasich.

1. He keeps Ohio firmly in GOP hands, which ends any possibility of a Hillary administration.
2. He's a reform-minded conservative with an impeccable record on fiscal restraint.
3. He's a fabulous debater.
4. He's a tireless advocate for limited government policies.
5. He's a perfect fit for either Fred Thompson & especially for Rudy. If Rudy's the nominee, social conservatives will demand a running mate with irrefutable conservative credentials.

Had he not gotten defeated last fall, I would've also said that Rick Santorum would've been great too.

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

Unless you want to venture down the North American Union conspiracy path.

It's all about the Jooooooooooos, don't ya know. Another reason support Rudy. He was mayor of JoooooooooooYorkCity.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

It was George Stephanopoulos. It was the outrage of We the People that stopped the amnesty fiasco. Why in the world would we then go an nominate two who are weak in illegal immigration?

Talk about destroying the Republican base. Sorry, but I don't feel like comitting political suicide today.

www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.

Brinkley must be doing 78 Rpms right now.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

would be gonzo. Of course, that started the destruction of journalism as a serious endeavor.

I especially don't want that man as commander in chief, not after he played along with enemy propaganda with his 'torture' stunt. Up until that moment he was credible on the war, but not now.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

You believe that McCain is not credible on the war because he worked to ensure that our uniformed men and women did not torture prisoners in captivity?

Forgive me for drawing conclusions, but this would suggest that you don't think his position on the surge is credible, that you believe that his desire to put more boots on the ground and provide more support for our warfighters is the wrong way to go, and that you do not agree with his view that we may need to deal with Iran militarily if it continues to pursue nuclear weapons.

Part of fighting a war on a radical and violent ideology is not sinking to the enemy's level. That was the underlying rationale of McCain's torture "stunt."

If you believe that we should be torturing people in our custody. and if your view on torture is so strongly held that you would rule out a candidate because he's against torture, then please announce who you believe the pro-torture candidate is because I will make sure to think long and hard about not voting for that individual.

Unless I'm mistaken torture was already illegal under the UCMJ and Geneva. There was no need for a new law, but by implying that there was, Sen. McCain fed propaganda to the enemy that we were torturing before his bill was passed.

It was grandstanding stunt that served to get him favorable press without achieving anything positive for the country, at the cost of bad press for our volunteers in uniform.

Instead of speaking out for the troops, defending them against the smears, he joined in.

Shame on him.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

Part of fighting a war on a radical and violent ideology is not sinking to the enemy's level. That was the underlying rationale of McCain's torture "stunt."

It's possible to sanely argue whether some interrogation techniques are too objectionable to justify with the information obtained by them. Here though you've left the realm of sanity when you suggest there's anything in in American policy, or even among rogue American lowlifes like at Abu Ghraib, that remotely suggests "sinking to the enemy's level" has any relevance to the issue.

Even if every internal debate on acceptable interrogation techniques goes the way of the most hardline advocates, the line drawn will not remotely resemble "the enemy's level." When we start having Americans beheading prisoners, drilling holes through their hands, or blowtorching their flesh, then you could sanely bring "sinking to the enemy's level" into the discussion.

I hope it was only an extremely careless choice of words that led you to include "sinking to the enemy's level" in your statement, and that you aren't as stupid as what you've said. If so, I suggest you unreservedly acknowledge the stupidity of your statement and retract it.

is exactly why McCain should not only not be President, he shouldn't be my US Senator either.

And McCain's little "stunt" with the torture amendment was nothing more than a cheap publicity ploy and a direct shot at every member of the US armed forces. It was shameful.

The man is a two bit panderer who is unfit for elective office.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

And do we really want another guy in the Oval office who salivates at opening the borders?

McCain was so hot on this that he allowed it to destroy the remainder of his chances for POTUS.

No thanks.

McCain should be POTUS. Heck, I can even come up with one for RonPaul™... DC would shut completely down.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Thompson/Giuliani.

If Thompson enters the race, he pulls the social conservative votes. He pulls his current 20-25%, he gets McCain's 10-12%, he pulls at least half of the current 15-20% undecided, gets all of the votes from the seven dwarves (brownback, huckabee, ron paul (0.01%) (t)thompson, etc. If these folks wanted to support Rudy or Mitt, they would already have done so).

Romney, currently at 15%, keeps only 10 points max, rest go to Thompson. If he is smart, he drops out when his numbers start going down.

Giuliani gets 30-35% of the votes. His numbers go up as the current anti-Fredheads feel the need to cast a protest vote against Thompson because Thompson is, well, you know, Thompson, or something. Rudy is the only one that does not lose support as the chaff is winnowed away. Strong VP candidate, not strong enough for POTUS. Thompson keeps the strategy of the powerful VP, and lets Giuliani manage where he is most effective, in the GWOT.

All of this is based on
- Thompson enters
- Thompson does not stumble badly
- Huckabee, the Darling of Ames®, does not mount an end run and sweep the party.
- Ron Paul, the only True Conservative® in the race, does not become the Republican Messiah. Instead, he returns to porking in Texas.

When RP creates gold out of lead to enrich the masses, he wins in a landslide.

"Your chimeric Federal Reserve holds no interest for me. Elect me and I will I return us to Constitutional money. Stand aside: Mount Rushmore shall back our currency!"

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

Ronald Reagan on Mt. Rushmore never really materialized. RonPaul™ on the Mount. It's fitting. Shucks, we might even want to consider taking the other guys off.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

"Ronald Reagan was adamantly pro-choice," said Mitt, and those words will remain seared in my mind until he retracts. I think proclaiming them was one of the most awful things a man could do on a campaign trail.

Sorry Mark- I have not yet really taken full account of that recent Mitt news. I have always been troubled by the Adjustable Mitt. But I have slowly been warming to him over the recent weeks. And I can tell you why.

I am desperate for someone who can communicate. The combination of these two guys I think and hope will have communicative power. (I am still hoping Fred delivers.... I've yet to SEE though.)

This ability combined with what I also hope are and will remain conservative positions give me hope for good and inspiring conservatism in the WH for at least 16 years to come.

As to Mitt's recent error: I have hardly looked into the matter this week, as I have not had the time. But it boggles the mind to think that he would do this intentionally. Smart people "lie" when it is not easy to uncover the truth. Mitt is certainly smart.

If you can handle Romney / Thompson then I would think you could handle Thompson / Romney.

1) Wouldn't it weird to have this big old guy as the VP?

2) If you flip it around to Thompson / Romney, it seems to me you are pretty likely to get 16 years.

I prefer Thompson to Romney, but could handle either ticket, ultimately.

The big old guy as VP works, just ask Dick Cheney. He has more fans than the President these days.

You're right on Romney being able to step in after eight years, though. Not sure if that's a good thing, though. GHW Bush was an anomaly, being able to succeed Reagan like that.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

... but your support of a Tom Tancredo & Ron Paul ticket says it better than anything I could say :)

It's interesting that you would rather insult me than tell me exactly why Tancredo and/or Paul are horrible choices for president.

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

given that neither has the least credibility when it comes to foreign policy - and RonPaul™ is just flat dangerous in that area - and neither has any record of accomplishment other than blathering about policy positions for which neither can build any consensus in the Congress, I would say it's a "blind leading the lame" ticket.

I don't have any particular problem with TT serving in the House, but he's certainly no POTUS. RonPaul™ on the other hand, isn't fit to hold elective office period.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

The thing is, I don't see why Paul or Tancredo have any less credibility than Giuliani McCain or any of the other candidates. Giuliani left the Iraq Study Group and, unlike Paul, has yet to read the 9/11 Commission Report. McCain seems more intent on opening the border to illegal immigrants than dealing with foreign policy, and Thompson and Romney have little experience with any sort of foreign policy matter.

Republicans need to decide: do they want a socially liberal, globalist candidate for the sake of political expediency, or do they want someone who is principled and conservative in all aspects?

I also find Huckabee to be a very solid candidate as well, by the way.

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Sheesh what?
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

Rudy has a dozen years or so in DoJ in very high positions and was a very aggressive prosecutor was USA in the Southern District of Manhattan before he became mayor. He took over a City that everybody had written off as a crime ridden, unmanageable nightmare and made it a great city to live in. He got crime down to the lowest levels for big cities in the world. He put a stop to the welfare state among NYC residents. He brought hope to the people of the whole region. And all that was before 9/11. He was reviled on a daily basis by the NY Times and he fought off the most entrenched liberal political machine in the nation to accomplish what he accomplished. And, his accomplishments stand to this day.

Romney has a great record as a private sector executive and was governor of MA. Personally, I don't think his record stands anywhere near Rudy's, but he is an accomplished man.

McCain is a war hero. His son is an enlisted US Marine. Other than that, he's done nothing but be a legislator since he got home from the war. I don't like his temperament and his legislative priorities really, really suck. He's not, IMLTHO, qualified for any elective office, let alone POTUS.

Huckabee. Never met a problem that couldn't be solved by the government. Sucks on tax policy. I'd vote for my dead white cat first.

That said, your Bobbsey twins are not on the same page with any of the above. Rudy and Romney are both VERY accomplished professionals. McCain, even though I hate his legislative record at least has a solid record of building consensus on issues he cares about and getting something done. He's been an effective - if crappy - legislator. Huckabee was governor of Arkansas pretty much any time BillC wasn't. He's got tons of executive experience and has probably accomplished some stuff I just either don't care about or don't agree with.

Now we come to Bubba and Bozo. Tancredo is a pretty good CongressCritter™. He's a reliable conservative vote. I have no real problem with most of his position on immigration EXCEPT that he can't communicate it any better than GWB communicates his position on the war. The guy is a disaster. He's also a relative lightweight who, I think, will get eaten alive by the press and the Democratic Leadership. He's also a one-trick pony. Once the fence is built, he's an empty shoe box.

RonPaul™. The guy is a phony, he's a bad joke, he's ripped off the people of his district for over 20 years as their supposed Rep. He has exactly no accomplishments to his name. He has no plan to accomplish anything. He's a fool, a self appointed (or should that be anointed) fool who should be an embarrassment to every Republican and anybody else who can think in a rational manner. It's unfortunate that tar and feathers are out of style because RP should be tarred and feathered and ridden out of Washington - and his district - on a rail.

So, we have the choice between people who have solid records of accomplishment and who understand, to varying degrees, the idea of leadership or we can chose lightweight, lifetime members of congress who have no accomplishments to point to and who demonstrate neither and understand of or ability to communicate leadership.

Not a hard choice. At least the part that goes from Tancredo/Paul to Tancredo/Paul isn't hard.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Please. Rudy Giuliani can't even claim to be a congressman, as he is only a mayor. Every other candidate has at least been elected to higher office. Not to mention, there are some serious questions regarding his performance during 9/11, particularly with regards to his decision to place fuel tanks in 7 World Trade Center.

But let's assume, for a moment, that Giuliani is the amazing messianic leader you claim he is. Does his policy issues mean anything to you? Do you care that he is to the left on EVERY SINGLE SOCIAL ISSUE imaginable? If Hillary showed "great leadership qualities", would you elect her?

Is "consensus" with other congressmen more important than sticking to a set of principles and governing as an actual conservative rather than a socially liberal war hawk?

You criticize Huckabee for being too dependent on government, yet you criticize Ron Paul for being "ineffective". If small government is your largest concern, Ron Paul is your man. All of the frontrunners are guaranteed to expand the size of the government, especially McCain.

You talk about Ron Paul as if it was a miracle he got elected. Yet his constituency seems to love him; while in Texas on a recent trip I saw plenty of Ron Paul bumper stickers.

And the claim that he has done nothing is absurd. He was voted one of the 50 Most Effective Members of Congress by Congressional Quarterly and he regularly sponsors bills regarding federal spending.

He has no plan to accomplish anything? How about reducing the size of the federal government? How about implementing a tax plan that doesn't burden the middle class?

It's clear from your refusal to cite any specific instances to back up your claims that your beef with Paul is not about his lack of experience. It's about his stance on the Iraq War. Let's bring the REAL issue out in the open and stop pretending you actually care whether he has experience.

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

and since it's past becker's bedtime:

First, I'm not a big Guliani fan; I'll vote for him if he's the nominee, but he's waaay too NY for my tastes. That said, he was a very successful mayor of a city that is larger and more complex than all but a few states and which is larger than any Congressional district. Only a Senator from one of the largest states would represent as many people.

Second, mayor is an executive office and you actually have to do stuff in an executive office and take the heat for it. You can be a Rep or a Senator and do absolutely nothing exept show up from time to time and push the button the whip tells you to push, and that is what most of them do. Even their involvement in bill writing usually is limited to telling a staffer "I want a bill that does so and so."

In my experience, legislative experience is all but worthless in the executive branch. It might give you a little better knowledge of government structure and budgets than the guy off the street, but that's about it. And the legislative temperament, that get along, go along, hail fellow well met, is disastrous in the executive branch, as is the overwhelming ego that many legislators develop while not doing much of anything.
In Vino Veritas

Plus... first of all, Rudy is no messiah. He's a politician. I really do know the difference. He also happens to be an effective and accomplished politician. There is simply no comparison to running NYC and being from any Congressional District in the nation. NYC is bigger and more complex than the state government of any governor who's running, not to mention a more complex job that the GWB had as governor or TX.

With respect to RonPaul™, the guy is a worthless idiot. He has accomplished absolutely nothing in 20 years in Congress. He sponsors bills. How many get passed. Name one department he's downsized or eliminated. He has no plan. If you've got one, link to it. And a plan isn't a list of idiotic bills he's sponsored, it's a step by step structure to build a consensus to reach a goal. RonPaul™'s "plan" to reduce the size of government or change the tax structure is like my brother-in-law's plan to become a millionaire: "First, find a million dollars." The guy is worthless (Paul, that is).

Oh, and yes, consensus is more important than sticking to principles, because when you stick to principles and ignore everyone and everything around you, nothing gets accomplished. Which is the hallmark of RonPaul™'s career.

I would write exactly the same stuff about RonPaul™ and would hold the same opinion of him if he was to the right of McCain on the war. You might want to note my long history of opposition to McCain before you start tossing around drivel about my opposition to RonPaul™ on that basis. That said, his foreign policy views are simply the stuff of tinfoil suits and, without regard to anything his ignorant followers toss off, bear no resemblance to "the founders" and have no constitutional basis.

I'm not a Rudy supporter. But I could be. There aren't a whole bunch of things POTUS can do and I think Rudy understands that. He also understands that he will need conservatives on board to get anything done. That's why I'm not particularly concerned with his judicial choices, I think he'll do as good or better than any of the other candidates. Which pretty much takes care of about 95% of anything a POTUS can do when it comes to social issues.

BTW, this hasn't been discussed to my knowledge, what kind of judges would RonPaul™ nominate?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

followed closely by:

what

Hinz, Beck, pilgrim, gideon, Q, and many others here at redstate

said

thats whats so great

There are actually people here smarter than me

can you believe it?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

you're a lawyer! Lawyers are smarter than everybody.

Thanks for the kind words.

In Vino Veritas

(thats barack for before) I became a lawyer and by some miracle of God retained some intel in SPITE of 14 years in trial law!

I once cause a yeild sign to cry stop as a 9 year old.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Tancredo wants to lower the number of immigrants that are allowed to come to this country legally. Hispanics and independents would desert Republicans for the Democrats permanently. Paul is a 9/11 truther. He doesn't deserve to be a congressman, let alone vice president. If Paul gets nominated, many, if not most, Republicans would sit the election out.

Hispanics are already heavily Democratic, as are most immigrants. Legalizing illegal immigrants would lead to nothing less than the permanent demise of the GOP.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

or are you just wedded to your idea of what life ought to be like?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I don't see any rational basis behind the term 'hispanic,' that's why.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

it could be called a coke or a pepsi, or an RC, so the word cola has no real significance.

meanwhile while you are arguing semantics, the (souther border Spanish speaking people) are changing our nation into a feudal Spanish American type society, complete with the corrupt politics and socialism.

/you ought to spend a little time in border states like mine

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Yeah, you're going to tell that to a Southern Californian who happily voted for Sonny "It's illegal, isn't it?" Bono?

Two failed ad hominems in a row. How embarassing for you.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

As a recent graduate of a high school in southern California, I know all too well what illegal immigration does to our educational system, let alone what it does to our sovereignty as a nation.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

completely abandoned the Republican party yet. If Tancredo gets the nomination, they will. When independents see the GOP nominee going on about how he wants keep immigrants from coming into the U.S, they'll permanently split.

would desert us? If that stopped more hispanics from crowding into the country and voting (often illegally) then I am all for it.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

alienate the rest of Hispanics, we will cease to be competitive in presidential elections. Texas will turn purplish-blue, as will Arizona and New Mexico. That's a net loss of 49 electoral votes, not to mention how Hispanics in non-border states would turn against us and influence swing states. We'd be a pary dedicated to keeping the Democrats in the Senate from getting 60 votes so we'd have some semblance of power.

Hispanics vote Democratic by a large margin; legalizing aliens would do nothing but increase the number of registered Democrats, since racial politics have been a part of the left for decades. It's obvious you have not looked at any of the statistics regarding Hispanic voters. The one demographic that consistently votes Republican by a large margin is the white middle class. A vote for amnesty would anger the GOP's base and only further a loss of Republican power.

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

more than just a choice between amnesty and no amnesty here? Or that the white middle class you speak of can also listen to reason? This is a complex issue, more economic than anything, that goes far beyond the simplistic 'secure the borders and kick 'em out' jingoism currently getting all the airplay.

And thanks, but i'll keep my own counsel on the voting demographics. As for the notion that Hispanics 'vote Democratic by a large margin', it bears repeating that they are still as American as you or I, and their vote counts, and up until last year we (those of us whose job it is to actually win elections) had been making real inroads into that 'Democratic' vote. I hope you didn't mean to imply that these people or their votes don't matter, because they sure as hell do where I live and work, and we'd be well advised to take them into account on this one.

Be nice or i'll slap you cross-eyed!
- Granny

My point was that the argument that the GOP is going to lose if we don't give amnesty to illegal aliens or decrease immigration restrictions is severely flawed, not that Hispanics were "inferior" or whatnot. We shouldn't be trading in a loyal, established demographic for the sake of another demographic that has consistently voted Democratic.

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

Too bad they aren't running. I admire DeMint's socially conservative stance very much, although I don't agree with him on foreign policy. Coburn would be great, too.

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

What are you looking for in a Veep, Franz?

It's been a tough morning, we've been under siege by an army of quail and a bunch of bunnies. The Prince has been out all morning making sure Mrs908's yard is safe for her.

Bottom line, he has no list. Every time the subject comes up he mutters something about a bucket of warm spit.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Any criteria?

He won't need electoral help. There's no one better looking. There's no one even close to being smarter. If it's a matter of "ticket balance" he might pick a cat as long as the VP never shows up where he is.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

a cat, eh? I might have someone for Franz to consider (not to be presumptuous). I don't have the key info (pic, etc.) with me now (at the girlfriend's place this weekend), but I'll take the liberty of including it in a comment when I see an opportunity to do so without blatantly threadjacking.

You may have opened yourself up for an abundance of unsolicited solicitations.

When both nominees were also known by March. (Indeed, they were pretty much known two years in advance).

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Foreign Policy is supposed to be Giuliani's one strength. Without that he's just a liberal who wants taxpayer funded abortions.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

Giuliani has built this myth that he's the best man to lead us as we go/stay "on offense" in the GWOT, yet he has zero experience in foreign policy, security at the national level or military matters, so yes, a veep with foreign policy / national security credentials would be good not only for electability but even more importantly for useful advice if then win.

I disagree with your description of him, though. Yes, he was a liberal on social issues, but he's moved somewhat rightward and would probably appoint judges that are not too far from the type social conservatives want. He will probably be much better on spending that a Democrat. He will probably have a stronger Defense and won't shy away from using it where appropriate as a Democrat might. And he's shown that he can be an effective government executive willing to take on tough special interests to get smart things done.

especially for Giuliani or Romney. He's from Georgia, which balances out the ticket, and has serious Washington experience, something Romney and Giuliani lack.

Thank you. Agree. And no one could have said it better than comic book store guy.

the courage of your convictions and all, but one needs some political skill and sense. Santorum, god bless him, scores a great big ZERO on that one.

Be nice or i'll slap you cross-eyed!
- Granny

But he'll save us from the invasion of the gays!

Gingrich is the worst idea ever. His negatives rival Hillary!®, and thats with his friends and family. But Santorum will not be a VP candidate anytime soon.

sorry -- here's the link http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_candidates_compete

strong legislative skills, who knew when to nudge and when to shove. Santorum was far too prone to shooting his mouth off at the wrong times and hitting himself in the foot. He was targeted by the left, true, but he made himself an easy target. As a national candidate, he has zero appeal and giving him a VP slot would be as good as surrendering the election. Again, I admire the guy, but he could probably serve us better in another capacity.

Be nice or i'll slap you cross-eyed!
- Granny

the idea of Newt as a VP. He has the legislative skills to marshall the troops in the Senate, and would be a valued advisor and 'conservative guide', if you will, to a Rudy or Mitt. Either that, or in the cabinet somewhere or as a political advisor capacity to the POTUS. He has the advantage of being as true a conservative as there is while also knowing how to fight the battles effectively.

Be nice or i'll slap you cross-eyed!
- Granny

Newt is also a great speaker in just about any format (lecture, interview, debate, etc.), which could help in the general. On the other hand, he's polarizing in the general. Also, he's a social conservative who doesn't seem to practice what he preaches (adultery, divorce) so could draw some unwanted attention.

some of that is due to the fact that he's been out of office for some time now. He's changed his outlook a bit over the last few years and everything he's been saying of late sounds pretty smart and sensible, without coughing up any of his long-held ideals. I think he's just learned to play the game, and I think he'd go over a lot better if we rolled him out on the national stage again.

Not a make-over, mind you, just tan, rested, and ready - and more relaxed.

Be nice or i'll slap you cross-eyed!
- Granny

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I worry that he may have too much ego to be a behind the scenes guy. That said, he has demonstrated that he can collaborate in writing the alt history books, and that is no mean feat for one who fancies himself an historian and a writer.

One of the harder things I ever had to learn to do was to let my subordinates' writing sound like them rather than edit it so it sounded like me.

In Vino Veritas

I happen to like McCain, and yes, he has historically appealed to independents and probably still does to some extent, but this appeal is probably far less now due to the unpopularity of the Iraq war and McCain's connection to it (combined with a couple of dumb statements on CNN prior to one of his trips, in which he seemed out of touch as he painted an inaccurately rosy picture of the security situation in parts of Baghdad). If somehow things improve in Iraq, perhaps he could look good to a good number of independents for supporting the surge, but it's more likely things will look the same (which will be seen as bad) or worse in November 2008.

Brooks

I also liked McCain and could have over looked a bunch of things that I thought he was wrong on, until his support of the President's shamnesty program. That was the straw that broke the camel's back.

_______________________________
None of the Above !

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

True, but we probably will be drawing down troops over the next year or so (I believe simply due to manpower and/or other resource constraints), the magnitude of the progress relative to the size of the problem is still an open question, and there's been essentially zero political progress (national political reconciliation), which everyone says was the main purpose of the surge (to create "breathing space" for political reconciliation), and without which, Petraeus and others have said, all our efforts will be for nothing.

we have acheived vital goals in deterrance and in earm=ning the trust of the Iraqis and future potential allies. The surge's main purpose is to protect the US and it is also facilitating political progess at the local level.

All our efforts have not been for nothing no matter what tomorrow brings. We have killed enemies, won over friends and have shown potential enemies what their fate can be so long as the USA is assertive.

The value of what the US military is doing is not dependent on what anyone else does, and so long as we have the will to fight till we we acheive our goals, that is all that matters.

will

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

No offense, but that is an unfortunately oversimplified view. Petraeus and other supporters of the surge in Washington and elsewhere generally view the main purpose of the surge as facilitating political reconciliation, and very importantly at the national level. The whole "breathing space" concept was never really spelled out to my satisfaction (it's partly understandable, but I've never accepted that a bunch of Iraqi politicians in the Green Zone needed much less sectarian violence to work out an oil revenue-sharing deal, etc.), but that's what the idea was and is. And as Petraeus and others have said, without political reconciliation at the national level, the surge will have been for nothing (ok, let's say just about nothing). Without such reconciliation, the sectarian tensions will remain and will explode into full-scale civil war at some point, meaning we will only have delayed, rather than prevented or mitigated, the consequences we are sacrificing so much to avoid.

Yes, it's great that our military is gaining cooperation from tribal leaders at the local level, particularly in Anbar, and particularly against al Qaeda. But that won't suffice. Reconciliation at the national level is a must, even if ultimately the deal reached involves a largely federal solution (a "soft partition") with three largely autonomous regions, each with their own security. Any deal would still have to involve and ensure the sharing of oil revenues with the Sunnis, though.

Yes, there is a benefit to showing our enemies that there's a price to pay for crossing us. But that alone will hardly be enough for independents to view the situation in Iraq as substantially improving (just to relate this back to my comment re: McCain's appeal to independents as VP), nor SHOULD it be viewed as enough, in itself, to consider our effort successful.

As for your assertion, if I understand you correctly, that we will achieve our goals as long as we keep fighting, well, first on a pragmatic political level we need to face the political reality that support for the current level of troops and role cannot and should not be sustained for decades. Why? Because (1) we have finite resources and are already facing a long-term fiscal crunch as baby-boomers retire and entitlement costs explode, and (2) Iraq is not our only national security threat, let alone the only important way in which we would want to expend our resources.

This thread is about VP selection rather than debating Iraq, and we're now in threadjack territory, so feel free to respond but I'll try not to comment further except if you wish to discuss specifically the relevance of Iraq to McCain's attractiveness as VP candidate, which is how this started.

the VP or P or even DOD, given his support for giving enemy combatents lawyers, access to US courts and penchant of accusing US troops of torture sans any evidence.

Yes, we want the national govt of Iraq to become Connecticut, but we also want to kill al Qaida in Iraq. And we can't acheive the former or the latter if we cut and run everytime the NYT says we are "losing."

The only way we are ever "losing" is if we actually lose.
Simple but hard.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson