[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Is it any surprise to you guys that Condi Rice isn’t in any discussion? Do you think she would be a choice for the McCain cabinet?
Mufasa[/quote]
After being maybe the worst Secretary of State in memory? I don’t think McCain needs an additional Bush millstone around his neck.
Can’t let you get away so easy with THAT one, G!
Worst in what way?
I would think that a Secretary of State is no better or worse than the overall Foreign Policy of the President they serve.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Can’t let you get away so easy with THAT one, G!
Worst in what way?
I would think that a Secretary of State is no better or worse than the overall Foreign Policy of the President they serve.
Mufasa[/quote]
Where to begin?:
She’s completely loyal to the president, which is a bit of a pattern, incompetent loyalists (Mike Brown, Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzalez, etc.).
The fact that she has a limitless faith in the president’s democratization agenda, regardless of history, sociology, and plain common sense. There was a cover story on her and that issue in the Atlantic magazine, around last fall, reading what she had to say was depressing.
On the same lines, pushing for elections in Palestine when plenty of people were saying Hamas would win, then, after Hamas won, arming Fatah but bungling that and having Hamas take Gaza pre-emptively. Vanity Fair had a good article on that (couldn’t find the link in my email).
Some huge and almost comic missteps, example that comes to mind is proclaiming “the birth of a new era” during Israel’s disastrous attack on Lebanon. There goes public diplomacy in the Middle East.
This goes back to her time as NSA, but if you read any good account of the Iraq war (Assassin’s Gate is my favorite, but Fiasco covers some of the same ground, Imperial Life in the Emerald City does a bit, and I suspect Woodward’s stuff would to),
one of the main reasons for why the initial occupation was such a complete mess was the fact that it was her job to play referee between Defense and State, and she didn’t, and as a result some of the smartest and most knowledgeable folks on the area were left out of the planning.
and maybe the capper
We need all the friends we can get, and instead we make enemies out of Russia for very little reason. (This is also one of the stupidest things McCain says and does).
That’s a very incomplete list. I take your point about her carrying out the president’s agenda, but by all accounts she agrees with it. And, as above, she has done a horrible job with that agenda, bad as it is to start.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
jp_dubya wrote:
Kay Bailey should get some serious consideration, but the Dems would jump on that as being an opportunist.
I mentioned her in one of my previous posts on this topic. She’d be great. The needed women that McCain would pick up with such a pick would not be hollering opportunist.
Obama doesn’t have a chance. I really believe that.
You’re kidding right?
[/quote]
I am not. He stands for nothing. His supporters can’t one item of legislative leadership…
This will all be exposed at election time.
n=1 but that one matters to me. Just vote.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Can’t let you get away so easy with THAT one, G!
Worst in what way?
I would think that a Secretary of State is no better or worse than the overall Foreign Policy of the President they serve.
Mufasa
Where to begin?:
She’s completely loyal to the president, which is a bit of a pattern, incompetent loyalists (Mike Brown, Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzalez, etc.).
The fact that she has a limitless faith in the president’s democratization agenda, regardless of history, sociology, and plain common sense. There was a cover story on her and that issue in the Atlantic magazine, around last fall, reading what she had to say was depressing.
On the same lines, pushing for elections in Palestine when plenty of people were saying Hamas would win, then, after Hamas won, arming Fatah but bungling that and having Hamas take Gaza pre-emptively. Vanity Fair had a good article on that (couldn’t find the link in my email).
Some huge and almost comic missteps, example that comes to mind is proclaiming “the birth of a new era” during Israel’s disastrous attack on Lebanon. There goes public diplomacy in the Middle East.
This goes back to her time as NSA, but if you read any good account of the Iraq war (Assassin’s Gate is my favorite, but Fiasco covers some of the same ground, Imperial Life in the Emerald City does a bit, and I suspect Woodward’s stuff would to),
one of the main reasons for why the initial occupation was such a complete mess was the fact that it was her job to play referee between Defense and State, and she didn’t, and as a result some of the smartest and most knowledgeable folks on the area were left out of the planning.
and maybe the capper
We need all the friends we can get, and instead we make enemies out of Russia for very little reason. (This is also one of the stupidest things McCain says and does).
That’s a very incomplete list. I take your point about her carrying out the president’s agenda, but by all accounts she agrees with it. And, as above, she has done a horrible job with that agenda, bad as it is to start.[/quote]
You’re looking way too deep into things. If this election was about credentials, Obama wouldn’t even be talked about right now. Your average American doesn’t care about these things, all they want is the feel good vote. Rice brings this and can challenge Obama for it.
The one good argument against her as VP are her attachments to Bush, but despite this, Americans still support her, as shown by her favorable approval ratings.
I have said before and still think that she would be McCain’s best choice if he wants to win. I think Romney is the likely choice, due mostly to his ability to find funding, but he would probably make the best VP out of those being considered. I don’t like all of his policies, but he is without a doubt the best equipped to help a poor economy.
As for Obama, I’m just hoping he picks Sebelius. If everything else is going to go wrong this election, at least we can get her out of Kansas.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
…
3. Actually run the show because the President is incredibly incompetent/indecisive (lone example, Cheney).[/quote]
You might not like Bush but if anything his failing is he is too decisive and makes decisions with too little input.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…
3. Actually run the show because the President is incredibly incompetent/indecisive (lone example, Cheney).
You might not like Bush but if anything his failing is he is too decisive and makes decisions with too little input.
[/quote]
He didn’t have the strongest cabinet thou…
[quote]tg2hbk4488 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…
3. Actually run the show because the President is incredibly incompetent/indecisive (lone example, Cheney).
You might not like Bush but if anything his failing is he is too decisive and makes decisions with too little input.
He didn’t have the strongest cabinet thou…[/quote]
He had some sad ones.
I’m pulling for Palin … Barack seems to be having problems with women over 40 and I think she would obviously help to exploit that.
And it would be smart to setup the party with a strong, conservative woman with 4 or 8 years at VP on her resume …
A younger, more conservative woman would also be a great complement to the older, military veteran McCain.
That’s one problem with Kay Baily H. … I think she’s in her late 60s or even early 70s possibly?
Just sort of curious. If obama gets elected, and starts chopping apart citizens rights. Basically turning us into a euro-state(no free speach/gun rights). How long do you think it will take him to be assasinated? Because, if his plans goes into action, He very possibly may end up dead. He’s standing straight against the values a LOT of people hold dear. Tne values our nation was created on.
this could be interesting.
i dont care for either candidate, but choosing between two evils, i probably go with McCain. im origonally from Illinois, and i remember when Obama was running for Senator. he wasnt really popular, the other guy was, but he dropped out cause he was into sex clubs and would bring his wife with him. i think she was some actress from one of the star trek shows.
but anyway, Obama wins and suddenly the media says he’s our messiah. and they were talking about him running for president. and not long after becoming senator, all of a sudden he’s running for president and he’s the man for the job in the eyes of many people.
then you got McCain, you can’t know if he’ll be good, bad for our country or just die within a year of taking office. so whoever McCain picks as his VP, will probably end up being our future president, at least thats how im looking at his potential running mates. Rice would probably be a good choice for him. who knows who Obama will choose. he might satisfy the Clinton supporters and pick Hillary. doesn’t really matter whos the president really, its just the same circus with a different clown every 4-8 years.
Mick:
It’s interesting that you say that!
It just was reported that Cheney will NOT be attending the GOP convention (He will be “out of town” or something? Ummmmm…)
The reality is that McCain CERTAINLY does not want to be linked to Cheney. who is even unpopular with many in his own party.
Another thing. It will be very interesting to see how Bush is utilized at the Convention.
Right now, the Obama campaign is hammering home the McCain/Bush/Cheney connection, and how things will be much of the same if McCain is elected. It seems like the Republicans will really have to orchestrate very carefully how Bush will address the Convention.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Right now, the Obama campaign is hammering home the McCain/Bush/Cheney connection, and how things will be much of the same if McCain is elected. It seems like the Republicans will really have to orchestrate very carefully how Bush will address the Convention.
Mufasa[/quote]
I agree with you, but the thing that bother’s me is the thought that Bush needs to be “controlled”, or “reigned in”, to prevent McCain from being too attached to him.
Bush knows he isn’t popular, and he also knows it will hurt McCain if they are closely linked. He also wants McCain to win, and will stay loyal to his party. He is smart enough to keep a proper distance from McCain to help out as much or as little as possible. He does not need somebody babysitting him to prevent him from screwing things up for McCain.
tedro:
It’s not so much “control” of Bush, but more of the Republicans and Bush working out a well choreographed “dance”.
If you look at Convention Speeches of recent history, they really are live “sound-bite” clips, made for TV. (“Read my Lips…” “Poor George…he was born with…”)
They (the speeches) are a series of well-thought-out ideas and concepts, meant to be separated by cheers from the convention. Within those pauses are meant to be the words and ideas that convey the “heart and soul” of the candidate and the Party.
Bush, McCain and the Republicans HAVE to be in sync on these ideas and how they wish to present them.
Mufasa
You will hear rumors of who the vice presidential nominee will be, mostly to see how the public responds.
Condi was asked, and spoke publicly that she did not want to be vice prez. I wouldn’t doubt that McCain has tried to change her mind. If she is in, then it is McCain’s to lose.
Lieberman has also been suggested, but I have doubts about that.
For Obama, his best choice is the one he will not make. According to the Bitchington post, Obama is deciding between Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, and Tim Kaine.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Just sort of curious. If obama gets elected, and starts chopping apart citizens rights. Basically turning us into a euro-state(no free speach/gun rights). How long do you think it will take him to be assasinated? Because, if his plans goes into action, He very possibly may end up dead. He’s standing straight against the values a LOT of people hold dear. Tne values our nation was created on.
this could be interesting.[/quote]
His liberalism that is exposed already is turning stomachs. Imagine if they really brought out what this guy stands for.
Obama won’t win. It won’t be close.
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Just sort of curious. If obama gets elected, and starts chopping apart citizens rights. Basically turning us into a euro-state(no free speach/gun rights). How long do you think it will take him to be assasinated?
Because, if his plans goes into action, He very possibly may end up dead. He’s standing straight against the values a LOT of people hold dear. Tne values our nation was created on.
this could be interesting.
His liberalism that is exposed already is turning stomachs. Imagine if they really brought out what this guy stands for.
Obama won’t win. It won’t be close.[/quote]
I disagree, He probably will win. People in my generation are flocking to him like the sheep they are. I know maybe 5-6 conservatives, and a bajillion liberals.
If america’s youth goes out there and votes, mccain will lose. None of these people care about facts, or our countrys well being. They want free money, no responsibility, and for daddy obama to take care of them at other’s expence. They don’t care if mccain’s or bob barr’s policies make sense. Conservative=bad by default.
Do not expect a conservative president from my generation.