Toledo Talk - An Electable Ticket

From TheAssHoleLawyer's workspace

An Electable Ticket

It looks like McCain is going to be the republican nominee. Question is, if he is facing a Clinton/Obama ticket or an Obama/Clinton ticket (less likely) who can republicans put up to win.

I know she has said NO WAY for years, but if the ticket for the democrats is that strong and historical, would Condoleeza Rice reconsider a vice presidency, for her country, for her party, for her race and for her gender.

McCain/Rice would be electable. She might reassure conservative republicans who are worried about McCain's liberal leanings. She would draw moderate, independent, and undecided women and African American voters to the right, and, she is probably the smartest person in the current cabinet.

CMON CONDI - Please - for God and Country - take a four year job in the Vice President's quarters. If you don't want to be President, so be it.

The A-Hole

created by TheAssHoleLawyer on Feb 07, 2008 at 09:20:31 am Comments: 14

print source versions

Comments ... #

McCain/Rice would be electable

Oh sure it would! First VP debate question: "Ms Rice, what was the name of that PDB that sat on George Bush's desk while he vacationed at the ranch in early September 2001?"

posted by Man_with_the_muck_rake on Feb 07, 2008 at 09:42:40 am     #

I think adding Rice to the ticket would be a sure fire way NOT to get elected. McCain needs to keep his distance from Bush cronies all he can. He is liberal enough that he has some Dems looking at him, but adding Rice will make them run for the Hills(ary).

posted by Ryan on Feb 07, 2008 at 10:06:02 am     #

Yeah, that's the wrong way to go. Too many ties to Bush and his failed administration.

posted by Chris99 on Feb 07, 2008 at 10:27:59 am     #

McCain's the male equivalent of Hillary Clinton except she's taller.

It'll make for interesting TV aesthetics.
5'8 1/2 her
to
5'7" him.

So much for choice. The Reps want a war mongering Democrat in McCain. The military saw him unfit for promotion but maybe the rigged electoral system won't be so discerning.

posted by charlatan on Feb 07, 2008 at 12:51:59 pm     #

McCain doesn't have liberal leanings. He IS a liberal. In 2002 he engaged in negotions to switch parties.

I don't believe McCain is electable no matter who his running mate is. He has alienated too many conservatives and the electorate is too evenly split. I personally wouldn't vote for him no matter what. IMHO he would have to be superman to win the general election. That's why the media likes him.

As far as I'm concerned, the 2008 race is over. Liberalism won. Congrats!

posted by babbleman on Feb 07, 2008 at 01:23:34 pm     #

Romney just dropped out!

posted by billy on Feb 07, 2008 at 01:41:38 pm     #

I'm not a McCain supporter and he won't get vote. Having said that, though, I find it amazing there is soooo much McCain bashing. The likes of Rush and Sean hammer him, but basically give Romney a pass. Romney and Huckleberry are no more "conservative" than McCain.

McCain has supported some issues I didn't like and he won't get my vote because of that. I trust his fiscal attitude more than any other candidate, outside of Ron Paul.

This "conservative" hysteria is why many so-called "conservatives" scare me. If you're truly a conservative, you should be a libertarian by today's standard.

Babbleman, I've never heard about his potential party-switch and am curious about it. Do you have anything on that or is it simply a part of the hype/ hysteria?

posted by Postal on Feb 07, 2008 at 01:50:36 pm     #

Does anyone else notice this--

Clinton is too moderate for progressives in the Democratic Party. Yet, if she gets the nomination they will still vote for her.

McCain is considered too moderate (even though he received an 80% from the ACU) for conservatives in the Republican Party---so much so they many have said they will NOT vote for him. Is this how far right the GOP base has moved?

posted by Chris99 on Feb 07, 2008 at 01:54:36 pm     #

Postal, here is the article I read the other day.

posted by babbleman on Feb 07, 2008 at 03:20:34 pm     #

Great point. If there is one thing that the electorate wants, it's an extension of the the Bush administration.

posted by thetoledowire_com on Feb 07, 2008 at 03:51:35 pm     #

Thanks for the reply, Babbleman. I'm surprised I haven't heard about this on one of the radio shows (not that I listen much).

posted by Postal on Feb 07, 2008 at 04:14:29 pm     #

Postal said: If you're truly a conservative, you should be a libertarian by today's standard.

In general, I think I know what you're saying Postal, but words like truly and today's standard are always a bit slippery.

In the literal sense, I understand a conservative as not actually having any political philosophy at all. Conservatives believe that government needs to not change too fast. The direction of the change is irrelevant. You could find conservatives all over the map depending on which decade you look at. To me, that describes McCain. He doesn't appear to oppose the direction of policies on the left as long as it is not too far too fast. That's why I don't like McCain and also why I don't consider myself a (literal) conservative.

Nothing has stopped or reversed the country's move to the left since the end of the 19th century but especially since the 1930's. Much is made of the "conservative revolution" and Reagan - but all they did is what you would expect a literal definition of conservatism to do: slow down the move to the left.

Personally, I don't like the Libertarian party because I think their desire to withdraw from Iraq underlies an idealism that is not sustainable. I think liberty is a very rare thing and, since the natural state of mankind is to smother it, I think it has to be spread aggressively, in a revolutionary way. I'm not trying to open an argument into the war on Iraq - just pointing out why Libertarian doesn't work for me. Another thing about Libertarian's is their totally absurd concentration on drug legalization. From a point of individual liberty I am all for drug legalization, but given the state of liberty in the world and especially in America, drugs are easily the last thing I am concerned about.

Personally I identify most with the ideas that compelled those to fight our first revolution. Of course, that was who the term "liberal" was coined for. Obviously that term has been mangled a bit (to put it nicely) as far as today's use.

So as long as we are throwing around definitions, here is how I would assing them:

McCain = Conservative

Obama / Clinton = Socialist

Fred Thompson (and me) = Liberal

posted by babbleman on Feb 07, 2008 at 05:00:04 pm     #

Well, now the Stormin Mormon is out, but he wouldn't have got my vote anyway. Nobody left but Paul now, I guess, and third party in November.

posted by Darkseid on Feb 07, 2008 at 06:38:59 pm     #

Since we're defining political leanings subjectively...

Our Lord Savior Jesus Christ - enemy of the state

most politicians - typical corporate/industrial apologists

The whole lib/con ontological bullshit is overplayed. It's like Coke vs. Pepsi when you'd prefer a vintage malt liquor.

posted by charlatan on Feb 07, 2008 at 08:15:20 pm     #