Obama's running mate

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by KDAngel

As a hardcore McCain supporter and DC politico, it's proof that there is a God for all of those who had any doubts.

Well, let me clarify that I don't think it in any way clears the path for McCain, I still think he's got a tough road ahead and is most likely not going to win. I think he's a poor, poor candidate and not a bright selection on the GOP's behalf. And I personally staunchly oppose following up the last two GOP terms with another one, thus allowing all the entrenched politicos to likely stay where they are and keep performing at their sub-standard levels. I just wish I could get more excited about the ticket I will undoubtedly be voting for if for nothing else than the beat-out-the-DC-rug-to-dislodge-the-dustmites-that-are-buried-too-deep-in-the-nap factor.

[Thetagirl218]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Well, let me clarify that I don't think it in any way clears the path for McCain, I still think he's got a tough road ahead and is most likely not going to win. I think he's a poor, poor candidate and not a bright selection on the GOP's behalf. And I personally staunchly oppose following up the last two GOP terms with another one, thus allowing all the entrenched politicos to likely stay where they are and keep performing at their sub-standard levels. I just wish I could get more excited about the ticket I will undoubtedly be voting for if for nothing else than the beat-out-the-DC-rug-to-dislodge-the-dustmites-that-are-buried-too-deep-in-the-nap factor.

I totally agree!!!!!! I am a registered Republican.....and I HATE McCain!

I think 8 years of a President so out of touch with the world, has really led to yet another shake up in politics! Its about time!

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Thetagirl218

I totally agree!!!!!! I am a registered Republican.....and I HATE McCain!

I think 8 years of a President so out of touch with the world, has really led to yet another shake up in politics! Its about time!

I think it all depends on what you mean by "shake up." We have a Democrat-controlled Congress - does that mean we should also vote to turn Congressional control to the Republicans, to shake things up? Or, do we only want a shake-up as far as it replaces a Republican president, a selective shake up, so to speak?

I'm not trying to pick on you specifically, but I just find it interesting that a lot of the people who are talking about change, and about a shake-up, would want 1) to keep control the same in Congress and 2) would be so fired up over two Washington insiders in Obama and Biden. And, yes, Obama is a Washington insider, it's impossible not to be as a member of Congress.

I think the Obama camp made an error in not bringing Hilary on the ticket; there would have been some PR work to do in bringing on a former rival, but Obama's camp is pretty solid in PR (plus the press LOVES Obama), and picking up most of those former Hilary votes could have widened the gap considerably.

Then again, I was listening to one of the political radio shows, and they were talking about the McCain-Bush battle in 2000, how something like 30-40% of McCain backers had said at the convention that they wouldn't back Bush, and how that number decreased to about 6% at election-time. So, I could definitely be wrong.

But, hey, I'm just a Republican who isn't all that thrilled with his own party's candidate, and is voting for him in a "lesser of two evils" context.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I think it all depends on what you mean by "shake up." We have a Democrat-controlled Congress - does that mean we should also vote to turn Congressional control to the Republicans, to shake things up? Or, do we only want a shake-up as far as it replaces a Republican president, a selective shake up, so to speak?

I'm not trying to pick on you specifically, but I just find it interesting that a lot of the people who are talking about change, and about a shake-up, would want 1) to keep control the same in Congress and 2) would be so fired up over two Washington insiders in Obama and Biden. And, yes, Obama is a Washington insider, it's impossible not to be as a member of Congress.

I think the Obama camp made an error in not bringing Hilary on the ticket; there would have been some PR work to do in bringing on a former rival, but Obama's camp is pretty solid in PR (plus the press LOVES Obama), and picking up most of those former Hilary votes could have widened the gap considerably.

Then again, I was listening to one of the political radio shows, and they were talking about the McCain-Bush battle in 2000, how something like 30-40% of McCain backers had said at the convention that they wouldn't back Bush, and how that number decreased to about 6% at election-time. So, I could definitely be wrong.

But, hey, I'm just a Republican who isn't all that thrilled with his own party's candidate, and is voting for him in a "lesser of two evils" context.

Congress, the Supreme Court, etc., are whole other balls of waxes. For my part, when I spoke of dislodging the entrenched politicos, I'm talking about the countless political appointees who have gotten way too comfy deep in the bowels of the agencies, affecting policy without most of the country having any idea or understanding of how it works. Same with the lobbying groups that have well-trod paths into and out of the executive offices. This is not to say the current lobbyists won't just be replaced by a new set of interest groups, but at least the paths might change slightly so the grass can have a chance to grow back on the paths that have been so worn down the past 8 years.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Congress, the Supreme Court, etc., are whole other balls of waxes. For my part, when I spoke of dislodging the entrenched politicos, I'm talking about the countless political appointees who have gotten way too comfy deep in the bowels of the agencies, affecting policy without most of the country having any idea or understanding of how it works. Same with the lobbying groups that have well-trod paths into and out of the executive offices. This is not to say the current lobbyists won't just be replaced by a new set of interest groups, but at least the paths might change slightly so the grass can have a chance to grow back on the paths that have been so worn down the past 8 years.

Fair enough - I think, though, that the same interest groups are going to be there. Also, those political appointees will probably be on thin ice, no matter who gets elected - McCain and Bush aren't the best of pals, so I think there'd still be a housecleaning.

[Tom Earp]

So, when did Biden become a new born V P Candidate? How long has He been in Congress? Dah-30 years?

He is pure as the driven Deleware snow?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

So, when did Biden become a new born V P Candidate? How long has He been in Congress? Dah-30 years?

He is pure as the driven Deleware snow?

He has been a Presidential candidate in past primaries. In '88, he might have given Dukakis more of a run for his money, but he had a serious illness.

As far as being in Congress 30 years - I don't see why it's such a big deal. Someone could be a first-term Congressman (or woman) and be dirty, and someone could be in Congress for years while being completely clean.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

So, when did Biden become a new born V P Candidate? How long has He been in Congress? Dah-30 years?

He is pure as the driven Deleware snow?

McCain has been in Congress 26 years! What's your point?

[pinksirfidel]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I think
But, hey, I'm just a Republican who isn't all that thrilled with his own party's candidate, and is voting for him in a "lesser of two evils" context.

Finally! I've found a republican who admits he's not "thrilled" with McCain. For some reason, my friends just won't fess up! I remember when McCain was disliked by the republicans. He WAS such a maverick (at times), his conservative counterparts called him "liberal minded." John McCain WAS an independent thinking man I once admired. Hasn't anyone noticed how he has changed over the past eight years (minus the war, of course)? He's fed into all the hype...proving his "conservative beliefs" of pro-life, tax cuts and his disapproval of gay marriage. I guess I can't blame him. How could he have won over his party w/o doing so? If I have learned one thing from my conservative friends it would be that they vote "Republican, no matter what!" I don't know how many times I've heard this.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Fair enough - I think, though, that the same interest groups are going to be there. Also, those political appointees will probably be on thin ice, no matter who gets elected - McCain and Bush aren't the best of pals, so I think there'd still be a housecleaning.

He could of fooled me! He voted with the dude 95% (or you can use Fox News, who reported 86%) of the time.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by pinksirfidel

Finally! I've found a republican who admits he's not "thrilled" with McCain. For some reason, my friends just won't fess up! I remember when McCain was disliked by the republicans. He WAS such a maverick (at times), his conservative counterparts called him "liberal minded." John McCain WAS an independent thinking man I once admired. Hasn't anyone noticed how he has changed over the past eight years (minus the war, of course)? He's fed into all the hype...proving his "conservative beliefs" of pro-life, tax cuts and his disapproval of gay marriage. I guess I can't blame him. How could he have won over his party w/o doing so? If I have learned one thing from my conservative friends it would be that they vote "Republican, no matter what!" I don't know how many times I've heard this.

The thing is, McCain was NEVER all that liberal. Saying he was liberal is like saying Lieberman was conservative. If you look at McCain's voting record and his stances on issues, he's always been quite conservative on most issues. He got the reputation because of his stances on campaign financing, and a whole lot of spin.