So hey, former GOP presidential candidate and Panamanian strong-man John "Juan" McCain, why didn't you pick Mitt Romney as your running-mate in 2008?
"Oh come on, because we thought that Sarah Palin was the better candidate. ... Why didn’t I? Because we had a better candidate, the same way with all the others. ... Come on, why? That’s a stupid question."
So it wasn't because he was out of touch, or had vulture capitalist issues, or had tax issues, or was too Mormon-y, or whatever. He just sucked worse than Sarah Palin. And it's stupid to even ask why.
Nice.
ETA:
Last edited by Sue U on Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sue U wrote: He just sucked worse than Sarah Palin.
That I can imagine.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Palin was picked to appeal to the evangelical base of the Republican Party who looked at McCain suspiciously. Surely no one is going to suggest that she was picked because she was the most qualified.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
WASHINGTON: Rumours over Mitt Romney's choice of running mate have reached a new intensity after his campaign denied a New York Times story that a selection had been made.
Names of front-runners are put out and shot down by rival newspapers and political blogs by the hour. There is one growing area of consensus though. The Republican vice-presidential candidate will be safe and experienced. And he will probably be dull.
''Each day it seems more likely that the VP pick will be impossibly boring; either Tim Pawlenty with his midwestern blandness or the smart but sleep-inducing Rob Portman,'' lamented the neoconservative Commentary Magazine.
This series of file photos show nine possible running mates for Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. Photo: AFP
After their Sarah Palin experiment this suits Republican strategists just fine.
Oh well "dull and boring" suits, at least they are going for a change from the usual "batshit insane and stupid."
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Rubio has said rather emphatically that he doesn't want it.
Sarah Palin was indeed a better choice for VP candidate in 2008. She caused an immediate surge in McCain's polling numbers and injected excitement into what would have been an extremely boring ticket with McCain and Romney.
As anyone with a three-digit IQ knows, this was no slam at Romney, merely the statement of a political fact regarding the 2008 election.
I kinda like John Kasich, although his name hasn't been mentioned. I think he would make a great VP candidate. He combines an insider's knowledge of how Congress works with the aura of someone who had the strength of character to walk away from it when he could have milked it for a lifetime of wealth and power accumulation, as many do.
dgs49 wrote:She caused an immediate surge in McCain's polling numbers and injected excitement into what would have been an extremely boring ticket with McCain and Romney.
Oh, is "excitement" what we are now calling the continual succession of foot-in-mouth and deer in the headlights moments that characterized her campaign?
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
There isn't a single minor party candidate whom you could see yourself voting for?
I recognize, in the current electoral environment, that such a vote will mean as much as voting for "Jack Frost", but if you really are that disillusioned with the two major parties, how does anyone else stand a chance of growing to pose a serious challenge to them if no one will take the leap of faith to vote for them?
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
dgs49 wrote:You might as well save the gas money. Write your choice on a piece of toilet paper and flush it.
Same impact.
so always vote for one of the two major party candidates, even if you don't think either of them is up to the job? Might as well flush that vote as well. At least a significant showing for a third party candidate could show those in control of the major party that some of the base they take for granted refuses to toe the line they drew.
Well, to me, it's kind of like not leaving a tip vs leaving a small tip for bad service. If you just don't leave a tip, the server may believe you forgot (or were cheap), but if you deliberately leave a small tip, it's harder to rationalize it and assume the service was fine. Personally, I think that one should cast one's vote for someone who the voter politically agrees with, but even deliberately voting for a ridiculous candidate sends a louder message than staying home and not voting.
No, it will never make a real difference in the outcome of an international race--electoral college or no electoral college; but it might make a difference in the later platforms/nominees of the party losing the voters to the third parties. Not a perfect system; but it seems to be the only way to get the parties to listen to the portion of their base they otherwise view as their birthright (because we all know they'll never vote for the candidate of the other major party).
