The Official Vice President Thread

[Plissken]

I have a feeling she's the new Dan Quayle, no matter who gets elected.

[Cail]

I disagree, if only because she's exactly the type of candidate that the GOP needs. She's young, charismatic, and a good speaker. Quayle was......Well, he was young.

[Brother Charn]

She has the kind of charisma that you instantly really like, or you instantly really dislike.

In my experience, women often precipitate this kind of polarizing effect.

dw

[Cail]

No doubt.

Ultimately, the RNC needs to figure out what it wants to be prior to offering up candidates in 2012. I doubt I would have voted for McCain regardless, but I think Lieberman would have been a much smarter, braver, maverickier choice.

[Brother Charn]

I would have given serious consideration to a McCain-Lieberman independent ticket... even though they would never have won, and I would likely have thrown away my vote.

I'm used to that, though.... I vote Dem in Indiana a lot. Heck, I even voted for Perot.

dw

[Cail]

Perot voter here as well.

I think McCain/Lieberman could have won. I can't imagine they'd be any further behind in the polls than McCain/Palin currently is (6% at the moment).

In fact, M/L would pull far more Democrats than M/P ever had a prayer of doing.

[Zarathustra]

Conservatives fear mythical liberals.
Liberals fear real conservatives.

The more I see, the more I believe that statement is true.

In this case, it means that people will continue to pretend that Obama is proposing socialism because that makes him something to be feared.

There's a little bit of myth and reality mixed into everyone's perceptions. To say that one side does this more than another--I believe--is dipping into the mythical side. Generalizations and stereotypes are pretty typical of myths.

There are plenty of real things to fear about liberalism's socialist tendencies. "Spreading the wealth" is scary, if you're one of the hard working Americans who have actually achieved some success. We already have an extremely lop-sided tax system, with the top 10% paying 70% of all taxes, and the bottom 40% not paying any. If this is an unfair situation, when will it be fair? When the top 10% pay them all? If the liberals can't be happy with 70% being paid by the rich, clearly we're way beyond the point of trying to make it fair.

Personally, I think Obama wants to buy votes more than he wants to turn us into Sweden. But it's pretty close either way.

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]

It's not simply fear-mongering to call Obama's plans socialist. There is a bit of resemblance, wouldn't you say? You don't think the above sounds like the liberal platform?

[Plissken]

Perot voter here as well.

I think McCain/Lieberman could have won. I can't imagine they'd be any further behind in the polls than McCain/Palin currently is (6% at the moment).

In fact, M/L would pull far more Democrats than M/P ever had a prayer of doing.

I don't know - on the one hand, in order for Mac to pick Lieberman he'd have to return to being the man I respected enough to vote for. On the other, I and many other Dems really dislike Lieberman.

[kevinswatch]

I would have strongly considered voting for a McCain/Lieberman ticket.

-jay

[danlo]

Why? Protecting the Israeli homeland? What about our land?

[Lord Mhoram]

Fuck Joe Lieberman. Since I go to school in Connecticut, I occasionally see The Hartford Courant on campus. Last weekend they had an interview with him, in which he refused to say that Obama was unprepared to be President after months of negative campaigning against him on behalf of McCain. He's already jogging down the sidelines to switch camps now that McCain appears to be losing. Say what you will about the two-party system, but at least it engenders a loyalty to a value system. Not for Lieberman. The only thing he cares about is his own interests, even more dramatically than other politicians. Yes, it is possible. He's proven it. I hope Harry Reid grows some balls and kicks Lieberman out of the Democratic caucus. There's already talk that he's about to lose his precious chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. Excellent.

[danlo]

I feel the same way. And I went to school in Connecticut.

[Avatar]

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]

It's not simply fear-mongering to call Obama's plans socialist. There is a bit of resemblance, wouldn't you say? You don't think the above sounds like the liberal platform?

Sure there's a resemblance. But horses, deer, donkeys and antelope resemble each other in some ways as well.

I don't think anybody from a really socialist country would call Obama a socialist though.

--A

[Vain]

Oy Vey !! I'm not sure you guys quite get it yet Palin is the absolutely best pick that McCain could possibly have made.

If McCain picked someone bland and safe, he might have filled a school classroom during his campaign stops. The entire ticket would have received less media coverage than Biden gets.

Conservatives would not have been fired up (those that claim to be conservatives but are flip-flopping on voting aren't really conservatives).

If he had picked someone male then a whole bunch of Hillary supporters would not have switched sides to actively campaign and vote for McCain (and don't tell me they're not - they are but the media won't admit to it)

Flip-floppers should just get over themselves and go and vote Mccain if Obama isn't the person they want to see as POTUS.

[Cail]

Fuck Joe Lieberman. Since I go to school in Connecticut, I occasionally see The Hartford Courant on campus. Last weekend they had an interview with him, in which he refused to say that Obama was unprepared to be President after months of negative campaigning against him on behalf of McCain. He's already jogging down the sidelines to switch camps now that McCain appears to be losing. Say what you will about the two-party system, but at least it engenders a loyalty to a value system. Not for Lieberman. The only thing he cares about is his own interests, even more dramatically than other politicians. Yes, it is possible. He's proven it. I hope Harry Reid grows some balls and kicks Lieberman out of the Democratic caucus. There's already talk that he's about to lose his precious chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. Excellent.

I'm not picking on you LM, but huh?

Loyalty to a value system? I would think that you'd value someone who followed their beliefs regardless of party label. I also find it interesting that you'd be OK with Kerry switching positions during his campaign, but not OK with Lieberman doing so?

Politicians do this all the time. McCain did it with the fundies (agents of intolerance), Obama's done it with gun control, Bill Clinton did it regularly. I don't see what the issue is with a politician changing his views.

[Lord Mhoram]

Cail,

I would think that you'd value someone who followed their beliefs regardless of party label.

I do. For example, I commend many of John McCain's earlier choices to break with his party. Difference is, I think McCain made such choices (often, not always) out of genuine integrity, genuine conviction. He did cross the aisle when it was not always politically expedient. Bill Clinton did do it all the time; the "Third Way" was his cheap political method of appearing more "moderate" (i.e., conservative) after Gingrich. Nobody would call Clinton a "maverick" for doing so, and there's a reason for that. Similarly Lieberman fully abandoned his party after the Democrats lost two Presidential elections and when the White House (in 2003ish) was waging a not-unpopular war. If the Democrats win this general election, look for Lieberman to keep trying to move back leftwards.

[Cail]

I don't necessarily disagree, but Lieberman has always appealed to conservatives, and I think his displeasure with the DNC was well-founded. I'm not going to judge his motives because I can't and don't know them. I can look at his record and see that it's not a huge stretch for him to have abandoned the DNC and become an independent.

[Zarathustra]

LM, Lieberman didn't leave the Democrat party until Novemeber 2006, when the Dems won and retook both houses. I think your theory depends upon a bad memory.

[Lord Mhoram]

Malik,

Lieberman officially broke off from the Democrats in 2006 because that year he lost his own party's nomination. Let's remember that, too.

[Plissken]

Lieberman switched after he lost the Dem primary in his state. He abandoned his Party to hold onto his power. End of story.