Is it too early to talk of V.P. choices?

[Arrian]

Sloww, your response is nonsensical.

You asked Rufus for a reference and claimed he wouldn't provide it.

Rufus supplies a link to McCain saying that US troops could stay in Iraq for a very, very long time (indefinitely, really). Your response:

Having troops in Iraq, I was for, until they got Hussein and the country of Iraq refused to take ownership of their country

Um... which would seem to indicate you are no longer for keeping troops in Iraq. There seems to be a conflict there between your position and McCain's. Obviously that one issue may not decide your vote, but you can't just duck that and pretend it doesn't exist.

I don't recall your full position on immigration, so perhaps you are in favor of a comprehensive reform package that includes both better enforcement and amnesty/path to citizenship for illegals currently in-country. To the extent you don't, again, that's something you disagree with McCain about.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

Good luck finding any candidate that meets your criteria 100%. Besides that, McCain and Rice is only spoken of. That doesn't mean anything. One could say any pairing should run, but that doesn't mean it will happen.

[Arrian]

Of course no candidate will match up 100% with your views. That never happens.

Rufus was questioning tthese two issues, however, because as he put it (and I agree), they seem to be important ones to you, based on your posting.

-Arrian

[OzzyKP]

Well in the other thread Sloww did list Paul as #1 afterall.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


That's not the question. This is the question:

You pop off all the time about how we should have left Iraq as soon as we got Hussein; McCain, by contrast, is okay with us having troops there "for the next hundred years." So why would you vote for McCain?

Oh, and as for illegal immigration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain#Immigration

Seems hard to believe you're okay with that. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you're okay with McCain making those 2.2 million illegals in Texas legal, just like that. But if that's not okay by you, why would you vote for McCain?

Simple questions. What's the answer?

I like McCain even more now

[snoopy369]

McCain making 2.2m illegal aliens legal (or, rather, offering a path to legality)

[DirtyMartini]

McCain - Pawlenty

Bet on it.

Pawlenty has been a huge McCain supporter this election. He's been travelling with him extensively. They're going to some sort of global security conference in Europe together this weekend.

Pawlenty is a young conservative. He's governor of a swing state that went blue last time out.

[Zkribbler]

I hadn't heard of him, but his website makes him sound very impressive.

About Governor Tim Pawlenty

TIM PAWLENTY was first elected governor in 2002, with the state facing a $4.5 billion budget deficit—the largest in state history. Just months after Pawlenty took office, the legislature adopted his plan to eliminate the deficit without raising taxes. In 2005 and 2007, Governor Pawlenty balanced the state budget again without raising taxes.

Besides bringing Minnesota from historic budget crisis to financial security, Pawlenty fought for and oversaw passage of a dramatic overhaul and improvement of the state's education standards; a significant increase in K-12 education spending along with a nation-leading teacher performance pay program; health care reforms that led to a zero percent premium increase in the state insurance program; significant welfare reform; a range of new government efficiency initiatives; creation of a nation-leading prescription drug website; and a doubling of the state's ethanol standard to increase use of renewable fuels and reduce dependence on foreign oil.

Pawlenty grew up in South St. Paul, Minnesota. The only child in his family to graduate from college, he attended the University of Minnesota and practiced law in the private sector. His public service career includes serving as a criminal prosecutor, Eagan City Councilmember, and ten-year member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, including four years as House Majority Leader.

Pawlenty serves as Chair of the National Governors Association and on the National Infrastructure Advisory Council, the Achieve Inc. Board of Directors, and the James B. Hunt Jr. Institute Board of Directors. He is former Chair of the Midwestern Governors Association and is a former chair of the Governors Ethanol Coalition.

[snoopy369]

Sounds good to me ... almost too good to be true???

[Zkribbler]

What??? A politician not telling the truth?! Impossible!!

[Alexander I]

Summary: Clinton, Obama, and McCain all really need to have a governor as a running mate, since they are all Senator light-weights. That being said, each candidate has different needs that a potential VP needs to fulfill in order to have a really good ticket, and to better compete with each other. The best way to do this is to have a VP who is nothing like they themselves.

*Clinton needs a VP who is a "change" candidate, and is progressive, a governor, a minority, and male.

*Obama needs a VP who is "experienced" and is a governor, white, and probably female.

*McCain needs a VP who is nothing like him at all. No WASPs. So his VP definitely needs to be more conservative, much younger, and a governor -- and it wouldn't hurt to be female or a minority either.


First off the bat...

*Clinton-Obama: I think a Clinton-Obama ticket would work wonders for the Dems, but if Obama is the nominee, I don't think Hillary would settle to be Barack's VP, and I don't think he'd really choose her anyway.

Here's some other predictions:

*Clinton-Richardson: Richardson's entire campaign seemed geared just to get his name out there for the VP slot. Granted, Clinton already has the Latino vote, Richardson could still solidify that a bit further for her.

*Obama-Sebelius: Adding a liberal woman to the ticket effectively marginalizes Hillary, and the fact that she's a governor would add some weight to the ticket too.

*Obama-Bradley: The addition of an experienced ex-candidate to the ticket adds weight to the "change" ticket.

*McCain-Keyes: Adding a conservative black man to counterbalance the Obama threat could be a potentially wise move. Except that it opens the Keyes-Obama rivalry from Illinois back up, and Keyes got schooled in 2004.

*McCain-Rice: The addition of a black woman to the GOP ticket could be a strong counter to either Clinton or Obama, but Rice seems to me to be a little bit of a lackey, so she might not be a very strong choice.


And the Peanut Gallery...
As foolish as it would probably be, I think McCain is very likely to choose a VP that is a mirror image of himself. So without further ado, here are some bad choices.

*McCain-Crist: Just paying back the governor's support, not a great option.

*McCain-Gramm: Another endorsement reward ticket. Two old white men is still not a good ticket for the GOP in 2008.

*McCain-Giuliani: Rudy's dream, but not very appealing to conservatives.

*McCain-Huckabee: Only if those two have truly been in cahoots. A truly awful ticket for the GOP.


Of course none of these potential tickets really appeal to me anyway.

[Ramo]

Keyes and Rice would make terrible Veep candidates ('specially Keyes).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, McCain doesn't need a minority. He's got great positives with independents and moderates already. The problem is with his conservative base.

So I can easily see, McCain-Pawlenty or McCain-Sanford.

[Ramo]

If you're going for token black person, JC Watts would be a lot more interesting. You could also go Hispanic with Mel Martinez (though he'd be a crappy choice) or with woman like Kay Bailey Hutchison. There are far better "diversity" picks than Alan Keyes, although Kaybe is the only one that would make sense.

But goddamn wouldn't that be awesome...

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Ramo
Keyes and Rice would make terrible Veep candidates ('specially Keyes).

I believe I did mention that each came with strong weak points. They're both just potentialities, and not recommendations.