1. John Konop says:


    This was in the Washington Times

    GOP leaders try to foil Lieberman pick

    WT-Pro-choice views trouble conservatives

    Republican Party officials in several states are in a frenzy over how to persuade Sen. John McCain not to invite pro-choice Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman to be the Arizona senator’s running mate.

    One of the state GOP officials said he talked with two “high-level” Mr. McCain campaign officials who said that “Lieberman is a very real possibility.”

    Mr. Lieberman, a former Democrat who was Al Gore’s running mate in 2000, is now an independent who caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate.

    McCain campaign officials made a series of conference calls Monday and Tuesday with supporters around the country to discuss the possibility of naming a Democrat or a pro-choice Republican to the ticket, a GOP source confided.

    Mr. McCain last week played up former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, a pro-choice Republican, as a possible running mate. Mr. Ridge was President Bush’s first secretary of homeland security. Conservatives and evangelicals threw cold water on the idea.

    All the while, McCain confidant Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, has been making the case for Mr. Lieberman, a Republican official said.

    Concerned state GOP officials on Tuesday discussed by telephone and e-mail whether to organize delegates to reject Mr. Lieberman if his name comes up for a floor vote for the vice presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention – if Mr. McCain actually does name him, either before or at the beginning of the Sept. 1-4 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn.

    But heading off a Lieberman pick beforehand would avoid having to embarrass the GOP nominee by publicly rejecting his judgment on the choice for vice president at a convention watched on television by much of the nation.

    Whether Mr. Lieberman would transform the McCain campaign into a bipartisan winner or a disaster is open to debate.

    The McCain campaign has said the Arizona senator might choose someone who is “transformational” for American politics – a vice presidential pick who would be “out of the box.”

  2. why so many are upset about this pick?

    It confuses people who think that there is a real difference between the Democatic Party and the GOP. On the Big issues they aggree, Big Government is their solution.

    Obama/McCain 08 Who needs a choice?

  3. Chris says:

    Neither Liberman nor Ridge make sense from a “balance the ticket” perspective. Ridge’s national background is Homeland Security, Liberman for is support for Iraq. Both of these are already McCain’s strengths.

    McCain needs a mid-western business person with domestic issues experience. However, if he picks Carly I’m voting Obama.

  4. MSBassSinger says:

    Let’s say that McCain picks a strong pro-life running mate.

    That doesn’t change any of this:
    – McCain is for amnesty for illegals. He will support it when elected.
    – McCain is for spending lots of tax money and restricting property rights by his
    support of the false claims of anthropogenic global climate change.
    – McCain worked with Kennedy, Edwards, and Schumer in the Senate for socialized,
    government run medical care.
    – McCain is still against drilling in ANWR, and until recently, when political
    pressure forced him to change, he opposed opening up drilling offshore.
    – McCain voted against Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. And those tax cuts were
    tiny compared to Reagan’s tax cuts.
    – McCain has opposed the techniques our military needs – not torture, but
    effective interrogation techniques. He was for Bush’s nation building that has
    slowed progress in defeating the enemy.
    – McCain, while in the Senate, voted with Democrats on key issues that divide
    liberals and conservatives.
    – McCain directly and with passion criticized Christians who are the backbone of
    conservatism in the US. He called then “agents of intolerance”.
    – McCain considered switching parties in 2004.
    – McCain’s trustworthiness is in question when he abandons the wife who stood by
    him in captivity so he can marry a wealthy woman and not have to put up with a
    disfigured wife.
    – With Lindsey Graham as a “McCain confidant”, that tells you alot about where McCain really stands.

    I agree with Daniel Adams:
    Obama/McCain 08 Who needs a choice?

  5. Old Vet says:

    Danf, MSBassSinger, you make McCain sound pretty good! If you’re right, maybe it won’t be too bad a disaster if Obama loses.

  6. MSBassSinger says:

    Old Vet,

    While I respect McCain for his service (I, too am a Navy vet), and admire his courage as a prisoner of war, I do not admire his character as it has changed over the years, and I see him for the Rockefeller Republican’t liberal he is.

    IMHO, since we are going to have a liberal whomever is elected, why not have a liberal in liberal’s clothing so when (not if) things get worse, the Democrats rightly get the blame and the Rockefeller Republican’ts are repudiated at the polls, opening the door for conservatives to regain control of the party to represent the base. I repsect those who want a Republican’t at any cost, but that is how I see it.

  7. Three Jack says:

    well put msbasssinger. conservatives (at least the fiscal sort) face a real dilemma this year.

  8. CHelf says:

    I love the “hand over everything to the enemy” logic. That logic always works well. Surrender so that perhaps one day you can win again?

    Perhaps there are people who really do not want to hand over all three branches of government to Nancy, Barry, and Harry. Your logic is perhaps maybe we can retake Congress in two years. Well that’s a big “maybe”. And oh how much damage can be done in 2 years. Plus add the White House would have to remain fringe left for 4 years. Imagine all of the changes that would take place in regulation, taxes, national security, military, abortion, Second Amendment, etc., etc. Imagine all of the lower level judges that would be stacked from the left even within two years.

    So feel free to surrender your nation to liberals. I’ll be sure to send you my tax bill. And a thank you note for the largest expansion of government in history. Along with the largest surge to the left since the New Deal.

  9. Three Jack says:

    chelf, how would mccain be different?

    there is only one mccain can use to entice voters his way; judicial appointments. the thought of more ginsburgs will get him a few votes. otherwise, he will continue to do what he has always done, work across the aisle with the most liberal senators to pass liberal legislation. he can’t run with or from his record.

  10. MSBassSinger says:


    You assume McCain would not do all or most of what you believe Obama would do. That is an assumption without basis. Remember, McCain voted for Ginsberg. McCain has a solid track record of appeasing Democrats – so why should we believe the next 4 years under McCain would be any different than his previous behavior?

    Your imagined changes don’t take into consideration that conservatives in Congress can put a stop to the worst bills. And, like in 1994, when Democrats and Republican’ts bear left like they did in 93-94, voters will likely elect more conservatives to turn Congress more to the middle or even the right.

    There is nothing to indicate that the end result of the 1st 2 years of McCain would be markedly different than the 1st 2 years of Obama.

    Don’t support the party – support America!

  11. RuralDem says:

    I tend to laugh at all of the threats of Republicans leaving if Lieberman was the VP choice.

    Where are all of y’all going to go? If you vote for Obama then isn’t that just as bad, if not worse?

    Wait, you’ll vote for Barr?


  12. MSBassSinger says:


    It’s called “None of the above”. You go in and vote for everything else you want, but leave the choice of President unselected (though after Saxby’s Gang of 10 stunt, I may include him). If you don’t want either lame candidate, that is a viable option.

    I admit I have no crystal ball or prophecy from On High. I could be wrong. But from all the facts I can gather, that choice seems the best long run decision for me when I vote for the President of my country. I hope I am wrong and if McCain is elected, that he governs like Reagan or better. I just don’t see the weight of all the evidence giving me a reason to vote for McCain. If that is who the Rockefeller Republican’ts want for President – they won the primaries fair and square – let them carry the election without my vote.

  13. CHelf says:

    Honestly if you think Obama and McCain would do the same thing, you’ve been drinking a tainted kids’ drink. Their records and their actions are far different. You’re being quite dishonest by listing items they would vote the same on.

    Look at their issues. Look at their agendas. Look at their tax policies, national security issues, social matters, and who will inflate government to the largest point in history. Look at the types of judges either would appoint.

    I look at the two candidates and see a completely polar opposite on energy, defense, taxes, government, economic regulation, etc.

    You talk about me assuming but yet you assume that after handing three branches of government over to liberals that a smaller amount of conservatives could stop every bill the Left presents. You also compare this to 1994. Well Obama is further to the left than Clinton and so is Congress. You hope that something good happens and Congress could flip within two years. Sorry, but Obama would still be in office and he will not repeal the far left agenda he enacted within his first two years. So regardless all you could hope for is a far left first two years and perhaps a stalling within the next two years. And THAT is best case scenario. The damage done to the country within two years will take AT LEAST two more years to even hope a change could take place. Try repealing tax policy, regulation, judicial appointments, national security, etc. with a Dem in the White House.

    Your philosophy says “support America” but yet you’d willingly subject America to higher taxes, failing economic policies, more regulation, left leaning judges, failing national security policies, etc. How is willingly handing the country over to Leftist policies that you can only HOPE to dig out of in 2012 supporting America? Frankly I cannot afford three branches of government controlled by the Dems for even 1 year, much less two or four. Dragging your nation down in failing policies and Marxist ideology is nowhere near supporting America.

    But if you want to “support America” as you say, by all means go all out. As you say, if we’re getting a liberal, better make sure he’s one you might be able to defeat later. Show us your commitment on this. Put an Obama sign in your yard. And write a check to him as well. I question your logic in supporting America by making the rest of us pay in all regards for your “support”.

  14. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    Three Jack // Aug 20, 2008 at 9:19 am
    well put msbasssinger. conservatives (at least the fiscal sort) face a real dilemma this year.

    Can someone please, PLEASE, show me a fiscal conservative who’s currently in office? Was Reagan a fiscal conservative? That’s not a rhetorical question, afterall, I didn’t realize that deficit spending was a prerequesite to being considered a fiscal conservative…

    Don’t get me wrong, I admire(d) Reagan, but IMHO he was neither a fiscal nor social (thank god) conservative.

  15. MSBassSinger says:


    You got Reagan all wrong. All his budgets were DOA to teh Democrat Congress. He pushed through tax cuts (fiscally and socially conservative) He pushed Congress to spend less, like they promised him they would do. The deficits of Reagan’s 8 years were 100% due to budgets crafted and passed by Democrats, I beleive with veto-proff majorities.

    It is Bush and the other Rockefeller Republican’ts that are pushing deficit spending and bigger government.

  16. MSBassSinger says:


    “You’re being quite dishonest by listing items they would vote the same on.”
    No, I listed McCain’s actual record – not what I think he would do, but what he *did*. Now who’s being dishonest?

    I do not fault you for seeing McCain as quite different through rose-colored glasses. I just subscribe to the “Republican’t at any price” line of thought.

    If McCain is elected, just remember what I (and some other conservatives) wrote when 2010 and 2011 roll around.

  17. odinseye2k says:

    Also, don’t forget that John McCain was very seriously thinking as being the Democratic VP but four years ago.

    Enjoy voting for Jim Jeffords for President.

  18. MSBassSinger says:

    I meant to write:
    “I just don’t subscribe to the “Republican’t at any price” line of thought.

  19. John Konop says:

    At the end of the day it is all spin on fiscal issues unless they agree on putting a PAYGO stop measure in place on tax and spending bills. A tax cut without proper spending cuts is fiscally irresponsible. The old days this was standard conservative fiscal policy. Why would you not expect out of control inflation and devalued dollar when your fiscal house in not in order? I warned all of you years ago and some of you still do not get it!

  20. MSBassSinger says:

    John Konop,

    1. Tax Cuts = Increased Tax Revenue
    2. Tax Increases = Decreased tax Revenues

    #1 was proven true under JFK’s tax cuts, Reagan’s tax cuts and even Bush 43’s little tax cuts.

    Tax Cuts + Limiting & Reducing Govt Spending = The Perfect Fiscal Approach

  21. CHelf says:

    Very seriously thinking of running as the Dem VP? Still believing that load and conspiracy theory?

    MS, there are no rose colored glasses here. I just don’t have my head in the sand. Doomsday scare tactics just don’t work. Neither does handing the nation over to the far left. As far as being dishonest, you’ve managed to copy and paste the same spin Obama uses about McCain. Taking talking points from Daily Kos and Huffington Post? Switching parties? Proof? And the whole Bush tax cut spin…please.

    Keep believing the spin MS. And keep helping us pay higher taxes. If Obama wins, I look forward to thanking you for watching the economy go down the tank, losses of more jobs, emboldened enemies, bigger government, higher tax burdens, etc. It’s a sad day when so-called conservatives tuck tail and run. Surrender and retreat and putting all your cards in hope is a great strategy. Unfortunately, this makes it harder on everyone.

  22. I’m forgoing my normal variations of “Shep” while I am protesting for a front page poster from Cobb.

    Justice Ginsburg was confirmed with 93 yea, 2 nay (Helms R-NC and Nickles R-OK) and 1 not voting (Riegle D-MI) and 4 absent.

    Republicans voting with McCain included Gramm of TX, Coverdell of GA, Thurmond of SC, Dole of KS, Domenici of NM, and all of the rest.


  23. MSBassSinger says:

    Cobb Needs a Front Page Poster,

    How many Republican Senators have to make a bad vote before it’s no longer a bad vote? It doesn’t matter how many voted with McCain, it doesn’t change the fact McCain voted for Ginsberg and that directly impacts his credibility when it comes to judicial appointments – especially the lower court appointments that fly under the radar.

    CHelf ,

    Never read DailyKos or Obama stuff. I have read other conservatives, looked at the records of McCain and Obama, and gleaned the facts for myself. Unlike Democrat and Rockefeller Republican’t liberals, I come to my own conclusions from those facts. Not one iota of liberal in this long-time conservative. Just common sense and enough honor to not settle for the best of the worst when the best of the worst is pretty bad. I am not trying to change your mind – you vote how you see fit. And, I am not now, nor have I ever been a Republican or Democrat. I am a conservative. I owe allegiance to no party.

  24. CHelf says:

    And Reagan gave us Kennedy and O’Connor. What is your point? McCain has voted for Roberts and Alito.

    The offshore drilling line you said is false. McCain has consistently left this up to states to decide. Many states have now decided to support it and McCain has pushed this from the federal perspective.

    Voting against the tax cuts has been explained but yet you continue to regurgitate the falsehood that it was just a flat out vote against any tax cut.

    He never considered switching parties. Again, it makes great blog talk on Kos and HuffPo. Shocked you’d repeat their lines.

    The whole line about his first marriage is frankly disappointing. Are you holding events that happened so long ago against him? I sure hope you have a perfect moral record. I guess you have screened everyone in office or ever ran for office and found someone of perfect moral background?

    I’d love to know which of America’s presidents you would vote for. By this high bar you’ve set, I doubt there is a single American qualified to run for President.

  25. Icarus says:


    Your point #1 is not always correct. Tax cuts do not guarantee increased revenue.

    We’ve allowed this to become a knee-jerk conservative “known fact” similar to all the “known facts” the left loves to spout about global warming.

    Tax cuts, standing alone, do not represent sound fiscal policy.

  26. Three Jack says:

    fiscal conservatives in office:
    senator tom coburn
    congressmen pence, price, westmorland, flake, ryan and a few more
    governors sanford, jindal.

    not many, but becoming more popular with every new spending bill proposed.

  27. MSBassSinger says:


    When someone like McCain has a moral failing in their past, and has admitted it was wrong, and is clearly living differently since, I give it a pass. We all fail (I sure have), we hopefully recognize them as failings, learn from them, and change. How I have changed from my past is something I use to testify to God’s grace and power whenever I get the chance. My weaknesses used to illustrate His strength. I have to see where McCain has shown any remorse at what he did to his first wife. That goes to his trustworthiness. And yes, McCain not only proactivley considered switching parties, he seriously considered being a Democrat VP. The libs like Kos and others get this info from conservatives who are not going to fall in line just because Rockefeller Republican’ts say to. Libs like the KOS folks are not smart enough to figure out the differences between Rockefeller Republican’ts and conservatives on their own. And, of course, you are just plain wrong on McCain’s record on drilling. He still opposes ANWR drilling, and he never voted or introduced legislation to end the Congressional ban on offshore drilling. When you defend McCain against his record, you sound like a Clinton supporter from back in the 90s defending Bill Clinton.


    You wrote: “Tax cuts do not guarantee increased revenue.” Well, yes, they do for federal taxes when they are as high as they are now. Always. Think context. If we had a flat 10% and no capital gains, then you would be right. But that is not the way things are, so my statement is correct.

    You also said “Tax cuts, standing alone, do not represent sound fiscal policy”. My post said exactly that, and your statement is right. To remind you, I wrote:
    “Tax Cuts + Limiting & Reducing Govt Spending = The Perfect Fiscal Approach”

    For you McCainiacs, I really hope, for America’s sake, that 2 years from now, you can rub my words in my virtual face.

    Now what does this thread have to do with Georgia? The same dichotomy between conservatism and Rockefeller Republican’ts we see nationally is present right here in Georgia. Our state legislature is “et up” with Rockefeller Republican’ts and a failure to lead with good legislation and reducing government. If we can turn that around in Georgia, it can be done nationally.

  28. Icarus says:

    “Well, yes, they do for federal taxes when they are as high as they are now. Always.”

    No, no they don’t.

    Here’s the short answer while I work on the long answer.

    If federal tax rates were cut to zero, it is mathmatically impossible for revenue to increase.

  29. MSBassSinger says:


    “If federal tax rates were cut to zero, it is mathmatically impossible for revenue to increase.”

    Could you be any more silly? Do I have to explain the obvious? I never said or implied such a ridiculous scenario. Please, learn what context is and use it. Hopefully your long answer won’t be as ridiculous as your short answer.

    How about your long answer addresses why a 15% flat income tax rate, with no capital gains tax on individuals or corporations, coupled with reduced spending in real terms, would not generate more revenue.

  30. Icarus says:

    Many people fail to understand that the Laffer Curve is just that, a curve. I depends on the point you start from as to whether a tax cut will increase, decrease, or not effect revenue.

    While the curve is abstract, and thus, we never really know “where” we are on the curve, it is fairly easy to demonstrate that there is a higher liklihood that tax cuts will result in increased revenues when marginal tax rates are extremely high.

    As a more real world case in point, (and I’m going to make up approximate numbers here because I’m too lazy to look them up and give a history lesson at the same time), When Reagan and Thatcher cut tax rates, Britian’s top marginal tax rate was 90%. There was clearly no premium to risk capital when the maximum return was only 10% of total return. By cutting the tax rate to 30%, it increased the potential ROI to the investor by a multiple of 7, while cutting the goverment’s share of revenue by 2/3. Thus, an individual or firm with capital to employ suddenly had a 700% incentive to employ more capital. The government only had to have these individuals triple thier income to cover revenues. While tripling income isn’t always easy, there was clearly the incentive for those with capital to make it happen.

    And these individuals didn’t have to make up the lost revenue by themselves, as the much maligned “trickle down” effect played a role, as well. As those with excess capital employed their resources, unemployment went from above 10% to under 6%, cutting the number of unemployed in half, and adding new taxpayers to the rolls.

    Now let’s assume that income tax rates are at 30%, and they are cut to 20%. The government is giving up 1/3 of it’s potential revenue, acutally less than in the above example. The incentive for the investor, however, is only an increase of 14% over what they were making prior. That’s hardly a game changing amount, compared with the 700% at the other end of the curve.

    It is very possible, if not probable, that we are already on the wrong end of the Laffer Curve. Spending cuts are where fiscal policy needs to start now, not tax cuts.

    BTW, that was McCain’s postion 6 years ago, before we ran up a few trillion more in government debt.

  31. Icarus says:

    “Could you be any more silly?”

    Absolutely, but what I do on my own time is my business.

    Extremes are often used to make points in Econ. Such as with the minimum wage. If the government can set a minimum wage above market that helps people, then why don’t we make it $10,000/hour? Because then the ridiculous nature of the theorey is exposed in the extreme.

    My “short answer” debunked your claim that tax cuts “Always” increase revenue. There has to be a point where, as tax rates approach zero, tax cuts cost revenue.

  32. MSBassSinger says:


    You wrote:
    “My “short answer” debunked your claim that tax cuts “Always” increase revenue.”. No, it didn’t debunk anything. “Always” was clearly in the context of current tax rates. Perhaps if you think less like a student and use more street sense.

    I am well aware of the Laffer curve, and I contend we are still above the curve. You example appears to assume the old Keynesian mistake of a fixed pie, rather than an enlarging one. 14%, to the broad source of middle income earners, means: 1) more in the 401K, IRA, etc. which funds expansion in jobs and capital investment, and 2) that they will spend more and/or reduce their debt, further spurring consumption.

    I would have found your initial reply more sensible if you had simply said there is a point of diminishing returns on the Laffer curve.

  33. MSBassSinger says:

    Of course, I could have been more specific about “always” meaning conditions as they are now, so as not to leave an impression otherwise.

  34. MSBassSinger says:


    Doyou understand the meaning of “context”? Just admit it – you overreacted, and won’t admit it.

  35. Icarus says:

    I think the concepts of “conditions as they are now” and “always” are about as close to opposite as you can get. I always have a turkey sandwich for lunch, and by always, I mean that’s what I had today…

    That said, if today you cut taxes to zero, 1%, 5%, 10%, 15% or even 20%, I would still bet very large money that there would be a large drop in revenue.

    Given the budget deficits we already have, coupled with the low value of the dollar, I think any additional tax cuts at this time, without guaranteed corresponding spending cuts, would not only diminish revenue, but would further force higher interest rates, which would increase interest rates, and not allow the pie to grow, so to speak.

    So, I think I understand your context, and I think you are still wrong.

    Thus, I admit nothing.

  36. Chris says:

    I have to see where McCain has shown any remorse at what he did to his first wife

    I would think such matters really should be between Senator McCain, his first wife and any children (if any) they had together. From what I’ve read they still communicate, and she has indicated her support for McCain’s candidacy.

    The fact that John McCain hasn’t apologized or shown remorse to you BassSinger, is pretty much irrelevant.

  37. MSBassSinger says:

    Chris Farris’ answer sounds so Clintonian. What part of “character” do you not get.

    Cobb Needs a Front Page Poster’s answer, however is exactly the fact-based answer I am looking for. That says a lot for him to say that during the election. I wish that was the only major failing he has.

  38. MSBassSinger says:


    You are a hoot!

    I can say “I always eat lunch”, but that doesn’t mean I eat lunch 24-7. In context, that means when it is appropriate to eat lunch, I eat lunch. If I miss lunch one day due to surgery, does that make my statement wrong? Of course not. People with common sense understand what is meant. American English depends heavily on context.

    Tax rates are higher now than under Reagan, so clearly we have room for them to drop. I think it is true we just disagree as to where on the curve we are. You take a Keynesian view; I take a more modern view, which history has shown to be more accurate. I think you greatly underestimate the growth that would occur from a low, flat income tax rate with no capital gains.

    Whether McCain or Obama, we won’t see lower tax rates anyway.

  39. John Konop says:


    I have a question if we had not lowered taxes yet balanced the budget do you not understand the value of the dollar dropping hurt you more that the tax savings?

    The ideal situation is to have low taxes, yet if you lower taxes without balancing your budget it is a fool’s gain! That was the concept behind PAYGO when we had REAL fiscal conservatives.

    You sound like the same mindless talking point NEOCONS who debated me about how the economy was fine with the out of control debt. And when I warned you guys years ago all I heard from you guys is that I was Chicken Little. BTW who was right?

  40. CHelf says:


    Please provide proof of McCain actively trying to switch parties and becoming a Dem VP. It has already been proven that someone acting on their own tossed the idea out to someone in Kerry’s camp. This person in question has been known to repeatedly do things on his own without the consent of who he is tied to.

    The only ones claiming this or any discussion happened are Democrats trying to discredit McCain. Now again, are you just repeating the same line that Daschle and others have repeatedly beaten to death? And do you go around repeating Dems’ statements as the honest truth?

    As for what McCain did with his first marriage, he has said this was his greatest moral failure. Frankly he doesn’t even have to tell people where he stands on this. This is between himself and God. You are not his judge but God is. If you are applying a Christian standard to McCain, makes ure you yourself are following one. He did say something public on this. Take it for what you may. You clearly still have issues with it since you are still questioning his trust. I guess by your logic I should still hold your imperfections against you as well.

  41. Doug Deal says:


    I have always believed that that spending cuts are more important because the government is way too big and forever growing. But, since the spending has gotten so far out of control (with the President too occupied with watching reruns of the tele-tubbies) that it is no longer prudent to cut taxes in the short run.

  42. Doug Deal says:

    GOP Girl,

    I think the smartest pick would be someone that no one ever considers anymore, John Kasich of Ohio.

    He is probably one of the most likable politicians there is, and has an ability to connect with the average person that has not been surpassed by a Republican since Ronald Reagan, who blows everyone else out of the water.

    He has strong ties to Ohio, and grew up in Pennsylvania, which could help in those important states. He was the reason that we had a “surplus” in the 1990’s, as chairman of the budget committee as he was one of Congress’s greatest spending hawks.

    Sadly, his chances are next to nothing.

  43. Doug Deal says:


    Most Presidential elections have not been close, and the ones that have been close, the VP was not very popular in their home state. One could say that perhaps Walter Mondale was an asset to Jimmie Carter in the election against Ford.

    The last two Democratic slates have been with VP’s that were virtual strangers in their own home states, and the last two Republican VP candidates were Cheney, who didn’t add much of anything.

    In a close election, a popular native son from a toss-up state serving as the VP will definitely have a positive effect. What magnatude, who knows? The circumstances are just not common enough to know.

  44. Chris says:

    and the last two Republican VP candidates were Cheney, who didn’t add much of anything.

    Other than admin rights to the diebold voting machines. 🙂

    DE is a toss up state? Mass is a toss up state?

  45. Chris says:

    The more I find out about who is opposing Lieberman as the pick the more I like the idea. Frankly anyone who had anything to do with getting the current administration into the White House should have no say or involvement in the McCain camp.

    If McCain really wants to shake things up picking a Democrat, he should pick Hillary. 🙂

  46. Doug Deal says:


    I agree with you. I am sick of the immature politicos who rate party over everything. I am also sick with abortion warlords like Erick seemingly basing every political decision on abortion.

    There are many good GOP candidates that McCain could select that the RedState crowd would object to because they are not “right” on abortion. The thing is, none of those so called “Conservtives” are right, because abortion has no business being a Federal issue either way.

Comments are closed.