Mccain VP

Originally Posted by SamSpade

Tim Pawlenty.

I expected Pawlenty to run this time around, but he sat out this election with the rest of the non-RINOs, so I don't see him wanting to be VP. I expect to see him in the 2012 primary if Obama wins in 2008.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

I see several issues for McCain. First, he's a senator with no executive experience. He needs to pick a governor to get past the executive experience/senators don't get elected President issue.

Second, he needs to find a rock-solid conservative, but I doubt any of them want to run with him. Rice, and now I'm hearing MN Governor Tim Pawlenty's name being discussed (and who I think will be a leading candidate in 2012 if Obama wins), and other real conservatives sat this election out as it was seen as a non-winner for Republicans. I think the mindset of these folks is that Obama is going to win, and they want to start positioning themselves for a run in 2012, so they don't want to get themselves branded as losers by hooking up with McCain.

That leaves essentially two choices for McCain: Romney and Huckabee. Romney still has some credibility left, at least enough for another run in 2012, plus he's a hugely successful businessman with plenty to do. Huckabee is jobless and needs the work, plus he has the religious vote on his side, and McCain is getting more and more desperate for evangelical support.

You must listen to Chris Matthews a lot - you guys sound the same regarding McCain; HE'S LIKE CHOOSING THE TITANIC OVER THE LIFEBOATS!!

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

It's looking more and more like Obama is a sure thing unless Barr can upset him, so I can see Warner wanting to take those odds.

Barr's only chance of upsetting Barry is like Perot's upsetting Clinton - upset being victory into the White House with the majority of the country not wanting you there.

[Bavarian]

Steele would be good choice, he has experience and the come from the bottom economic situation. He is making a name for himself as head of GOPAC.Rommney or Huckabee would be good too, more conservative.
Condeleeza Rice is too liberal, ie. pro-abortion.
I would like Pat Buchanan, but he has given up. His latest bood is great.

[vraiblonde]

If McCain chooses a really good running mate, I might have to rethink my vote for him. But it's going to have to be a REALLY good running mate. Huckabee or Romney won't do it for me. Pawlenty won't do it.

Steele would swing my vote. There was a time when Guiliani would have swung my vote, too, but he's shown that he's not really interested in the big time.

[chernmax]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

I love Mike Steele and the way he got screwed out of the Senate election was bull####.

If McCain's smart, he'll pick Steele, win, then resign.

Oh I'd be all for that, Steele would be an outstanding VP choice!!!

It may also wake a lot of blind NOBama supporters up as to his true qualifications since this will no longer be about race and a total train wreck for NObama's campaign. Oh and I'm not being racist, my remarks are targeted at NObama's white half!!!

Originally Posted by This_person

Barr's only chance of upsetting Barry is like Perot's upsetting Clinton - upset being victory into the White House with the majority of the country not wanting you there.

Perot was on track to defeat Clinton and Bush in 1992. If Perot had stayed on message, and not dropped out of the race and come back in with his bizzare story about his daughter's marriage, there's an excellent change that he could have won.

Even with all his last-minute goofiness, Perot still managed to get almost half as much of the votes that Clinton got.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

Perot was on track to defeat Clinton and Bush in 1992. If Perot had stayed on message, and not dropped out of the race and come back in with his bizzare story about his daughter's marriage, there's an excellent change that he could have won.

Even with all his last-minute goofiness, Perot still managed to get almost half as much of the votes that Clinton got.

And, had he not been there at all, Bush would have gotten the vast majority of those votes, leaving Clinton where he belonged - an Arkansas doublewide. And, most likely, we never would have gotten attacked in 2001, because Bush 41 would not have stood for the repeated attacks against our country unanswered, as Willie did.

See why trying to get a bad president elected is an idiotic idea?

Originally Posted by This_person

And, had he not been there at all, Bush would have gotten the vast majority of those votes, leaving Clinton where he belonged - an Arkansas doublewide. And, most likely, we never would have gotten attacked in 2001, because Bush 41 would not have stood for the repeated attacks against our country unanswered, as Willie did.

See why trying to get a bad president elected is an idiotic idea?

1992 was an interesting election. Clinton was really popular with the Democrats, but Bush wasn't very popular with Republicans. He got elected once based on his being Reagan's VP, but he was no Reagan. He got a great push from Desert Storm and then he squandered it by showing some incredibly bad judgement by trusting the Democrats to cut spending and breaking his "no new taxes" pledge. There were a LOT of Republicans, and I was one of them, who weren't really comfortable voting for Bush in 1988 and were open for a change in 1992. Perot was able to really tap into that desire for change.

2008 looks to be shaping up the same way, but even better for a Third Party candidate. Obama is getting tons of support, but as many people dislike him as like him. Plus his experience is an issue, and so far he is running as an open and unrepetent Liberal, which usually leads to disater at the Polls ala McGovern and Mondale. On the other side we have the King of the RINOs who has spent eight years pissing off Republicans every way he can. Worse, he's not showing much of a contrast in views between himself and Obama. Both candidates have serious weaknesses. Lastly, we'll have Nader running as a candidate, which will pull a chunk of Obama's support.

I voted for Perot in 1992 because I couldn't bring myself to hold my nose and vote for Bush again, and I think there's a potential majority of folks out there who will find Barr a great alternative to McCain or Obama.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

And, had he not been there at all, Bush would have gotten the vast majority of those votes, leaving Clinton where he belonged - an Arkansas doublewide. And, most likely, we never would have gotten attacked in 2001, because Bush 41 would not have stood for the repeated attacks against our country unanswered, as Willie did.

See why trying to get a bad president elected is an idiotic idea?

...all speculation. I happen to think you are right about fundamentalist Muslim attacks on US interests and Bush had just about closed the gap at the end of the race until Lawrence Walsh released his little leaks with two weeks to go, but, it is what it is.

Bush lost by 5 million. Perot got nearly 20 million. 90 million voted in 1988. 100 million voted in 1992, so, some of Perots support was first timers. In any event, it's one of the odder elections in our history with some rather large 'what ifs'.