Posted on 03/12/2008 3:08:10 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
“The list of plausible presidents is short. Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Tom Ridge, and Joe Lieberman qualify.”
Romney. I was thinking earlier, maybe Ridge but I hear that he is a pro-abort so forget it. I’d love Fred in the job if he were ten years younger, otherwise all you have is TWO grumpy old men on the ticket.
“Romney would be a disastrous VP pick”
Why?
But Romney would not be a great pick, and potentially a pretty bad one. He's a major league flip-flopper and a Mormon. Those are probably less important faults for a VP, but they're still electoral faults.
I don’t think that the theory that a VP can ‘buy’ states works anymore.
pick a VP to balance the man...Bush didn’t pick Cheney to win Wyoming’s precious electoral votes. He picked him because he needed to be balanced with foreign policy experience. Likewise, mccain should pick a conservative governor who specializes in economy because he is a moderate senator who specializes in foreign policy.
mccain had a problem with romney ever since the winter olympics in 2000. You see, mcCain really doesn’t like spending on pork that doesn’t serve the national interest...
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-olympics3feb03,1,4840688.story
On Sept. 19, 2000, John McCain rose in the Senate to rail against what he called the “staggering” sums that the federal government planned to spend to help Salt Lake City stage the 2002 Winter Olympics.
“The American taxpayer is being shaken down to the tune of nearly a billion and a half dollars,” McCain said.
The Arizona Republican vowed to “do everything in my power” to delay or kill “this pork-barrel spending” and to end the “fiscal abuse” related to the Olympics. “This is preposterous and it must stop,” he said.
>>As for his own views, Sanford told me that after securing the borders, he’d support “a bill that said to every employer out there, if you hire an illegal you’re in serious trouble” — something he’s trying to do in South Carolina. Beyond that, he explained that he understands the practical problem of trying “to pull off the largest migration in the history of mankind and send 12 million people back outside the United States.” But he added: “Would I have a problem with it, were it to occur? No.”<<
It may be more than 12 million. I wish McCain himself would agree with Sanford (or if he actually does, let us in on it).
well, the last thing any conservative (and especially libertarian) wants is some giant secret police like the Stasi or KGB in order to find and deport all these people.
I believe the main focus should be on Mexico. The only reason why there are illegals crossing the border in the first place is because Mexico’s corruption destroys the economy. We have an even bigger, less protected border with Canada and we don’t have millions of canadians sneaking through. So if I was president, I’d be putting a lot of pressure on mexico to get their act together.
>>well, the last thing any conservative (and especially libertarian) wants is some giant secret police like the Stasi or KGB in order to find and deport all these people.<<
I think a tripling of the number of ICE agents is a good idea (then they would only be outnumbered about 3,000 to 1), but I agree that would be just part of the solution. I meant that we should at least make a good faith attempt at employment enforcement.
>>I believe the main focus should be on Mexico. The only reason why there are illegals crossing the border in the first place is because Mexico’s corruption destroys the economy. We have an even bigger, less protected border with Canada and we don’t have millions of canadians sneaking through. So if I was president, I’d be putting a lot of pressure on mexico to get their act together.<<
Good luck with that. Thanks to the drug wars (and no thanks to our government’s open borders policies) the situation is getting worse down there.
Four liberals and conservative Fred. Yeah right!
I think it could get better with calderon. but bush is too soft with mexico.
“There are good potential VPs out there who lack the baggage that Mitt has, not just for this year, but in 4-8 years when it really matters. ‘First loser’ does not make you in the automatic VP in any case.”
True, we need to use this opportunity to place a true conservative front and center, and have a conservative future to look forward to.
Not yet, but when asked he will.
That’s why I said to watch for it.
Since Fred Barnes doesn’t seem to be objective enough for you.
great guy but still, just a congressman. A senator wants a governor. I don’t know of anyone more qualified than Gov Sanford and not 500 years old.
Romney is simply unelectable. He gives the impression he’s a used car salesman. He turns people off as soon as he opens his mouth.
Don’t take my word for it...just ask ordinary Americans.
Romney has the 2nd highest delegate count.
That’s all I need to know.
Either Mark Sanford or Fred Thompson would potentially energize the voters to go vote for the team ... and this in turn would aid in getting more Republicans into the House and Senate. My great fear is that John Insane will pick Lindsey Grahamnesty. That should pour just enough ice water on the base to insure Democrat victory in White HOuse, and congress.
then you’re not much of a political scientist.
He’s going to turn off a lot of people that didn’t vote in the primaries and he turned off a lot of people who did.
He already has the high negative ratings that Hillary took years to ‘earn.’
http://blogs.usatoday.com/gallup/2007/10/romney-and-obam.html
“A second disappointment for the Romney campaign that is difficult to dismiss is the fact that Romney has the most negative image at this point of any of the major candidates for president. Our mid-September poll shows him with a 27% favorable and 35% unfavorable rating. That makes Romney the only candidate we tested (including Hillary Clinton) who has a higher unfavorable than favorable rating. Among Republicans, while Giuliani’s favorable to unfavorable net difference is +54, and McCain’s is +47 and Thompson’s is +45, Romney’s is +19. In other words, Romney is much less well liked among Republicans nationally than any of his three chief competitors.”
>then you’re not much of a political scientist.<
Well, we’ll just save your little assessment and revisit the subject at a future date.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.